Proposal to open a Constibillocode Convetion

Funkadelia

Funkadelia

TNPer
TNP Nation
Funkadelia Island
Having heard a general trend to support total reform of the government, I am proposing we open a convention to entirely change all of our laws. I am hoping that this can be an opportunity to change TNP to a sleek and efficient government, instead of one that is exploding with controversy often regarding its laws. Yes, we may change things here or there, but real total reform needs to happen, from the bottom up, so we are able to make certain that we will be far less of a legalistic mess and more of a common sense based efficient government.
 
Um...we kind of already have a convention. It's called the Regional Assembly. Last summer, the RA passed a new Constitution and Legal Code, not long after you joined the forum. No special convention is necessary.

So... go for it!
 
Former English Colony:
a) It's convention, not convetion

b) Do you have any solid ideas of what you envision the government looking like?
Click to expand...
a) Sorry, I typed it fast.

b) I don't have actual text of laws in mind, however I am imagining a few different forms of TNP. I can see TNP that is less democratic, but the citizens have ample ways to keep the government in line. I can also see one where the laws are simply common sense and not too expansive but not too vague. I am willing to change TNP in a multitude of ways honestly, and I can work with other people who have ideas as well. I'd like to hear a general consensus about both the idea of a convention as well as what sort of new government people would like to see before I start pressing ahead and making definite plans.
 
I think there is a need for trimming down the structure of government. The Legislative process always stomps any real change to the Constitution. A convention may be the only solution to simplifying things. The trick is to come up with a good initial simplification of the Constitution and then prevent the legislative process from mauling it.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
The Legislative process always stomps any real change to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Jesus-Christ-it-was-less-than-a-year-ago
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you're trying to stop the prospect of a convention. The difference is a convention gives us a bigger and easier sandbox to start with. I think if we tried to change it according to the standard process it would be very very difficult to accomplish and make massive changes. If that's what we want to do, then let us do it. I just don't get why you're being so hostile.
 
Funkadelia:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
The Legislative process always stomps any real change to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Jesus-Christ-it-was-less-than-a-year-ago
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you're trying to stop the prospect of a convention. The difference is a convention gives us a bigger and easier sandbox to start with. I think if we tried to change it according to the standard process it would be very very difficult to accomplish and make massive changes. If that's what we want to do, then let us do it. I just don't get why you're being so hostile.
Click to expand...
I think he's annoyed because the last change was less than a year ago. If it was such crap, then why did people pass it in the first place? Saying we need a complete overhaul in a fairly short period of time is a bit :headbang:
 
I'm not hostile to the idea of a convention. My point is, you already have a convention. It's called the legislature. Make a proposal, hash the damn thing out, and move it to a vote. Viola! New constitution. It's been done before, and you can do it again. That's how things get changed around here.

How would a convention be any different from what I describe above?
 
Former English Colony:
I think he's annoyed because the last change was less than a year ago. If it was such crap, then why did people pass it in the first place? Saying we need a complete overhaul in a fairly short period of time is a bit :headbang:
Click to expand...
(21:12:48) Funkadelia: I have talked about it far more than once or two or three times
(21:12:52) mcmphone: Uhuh
(21:12:56) Funkadelia: But people are like "no its ok" but then they complain later
(21:13:17) COE: Funk, all you do is talk
(21:13:23) COE: Make a proposal
(21:13:26) mcmphone: If you think your ideas have merit bring it to the ra
(21:13:26) COE: Hell, make two

He suggested I do it rather than talk. So I'm doing it. Now he's telling me to stop before it even starts. I'm finding this a bit ridiculous.
 
No, you don't get it. You haven't done anything yet. You're still just talking about it. You've made a proposal to get people together and decide what to do. Not exactly what I meant.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
No, you don't get it. You haven't done anything yet. You're still just talking about it. You've made a proposal to get people together and decide what to do. Not exactly what I meant.
Click to expand...
Yes because it's so much more efficient and effective to just make my one one off constitutional reform and go "Here you go guys" then watch it fail for one reason or another. No, I want to throw out the old laws and bring in the new ones and I want everyone in the region to be able to help equally.
 
COE is overly hostile towards anyone who doesn't pursue things his particular way. Beyond that he wasn't even here for the last one so being annoyed at so soon a change seems far-fetched to me. It should be a great opporunity for a relatively new player to have his input, but he would rather throw around "Jesus Christs" and stick with the system he has learned. I think there is good reason to take a look at simplifying things, and hey, maybe we could form a government that isn't founded off of tired political ideas lifted wholesale from the real world.
 
Do you realize that you can bring in as many people as you want to help write your proposal? You can even start a whole thread just to discuss how a proposal should look before you introduce one. You have this platform, so use it. You don't need another identical one - use this forum. Have your "convention" right here. Share drafts over google docs until you have something ready to introduce. Get as many people's input as you like. If you're confused, ask Elu how he did it. Cause you know, he did the exact same thing you are trying to do, and he did it last summer.
 
I could simplify the Constitution and governmental structure very easily and it would result in a more democratic and more responsive government. But, people like to accumulate power and hang onto it and any changes in the status quo would be a no-no. :P
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Do you realize that you can bring in as many people as you want to help write your proposal? You can even start a whole thread just to discuss how a proposal should look before you introduce one. You have this platform, so use it. You don't need another identical one - use this forum. Have your "convention" right here. Share drafts over google docs until you have something ready to introduce. Get as many people's input as you like. If you're confused, ask Elu how he did it. Cause you know, he did the exact same thing you are trying to do, and he did it last summer.
Click to expand...
Or... we could just do it in the way I proposed. I'm sorry if you're frustrated because I'm not using the procedures you might like me to use but I want this to be as open, public, and wide reaching as possible.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
COE is overly hostile towards anyone who doesn't pursue things his particular way. Beyond that he wasn't even here for the last one so being annoyed at so soon a change seems far-fetched to me. It should be a great opporunity for a relatively new player to have his input, but he would rather throw around "Jesus Christs" and stick with the system he has learned. I think there is good reason to take a look at simplifying things, and hey, maybe we could form a government that isn't founded off of tired political ideas lifted wholesale from the real world.
Click to expand...
1) While I am opposed to a rewrite of our fundamental laws, the prospect of proposal to do so does not annoy me.

2) This is a great opportunity for me to have my input. I'm inputting it right now!

3)If you want to simplify things and form a different kind of government, you are free to do so, but you don't need a convention, because you already have one - the RA.
 
Funkadelia:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Do you realize that you can bring in as many people as you want to help write your proposal? You can even start a whole thread just to discuss how a proposal should look before you introduce one. You have this platform, so use it. You don't need another identical one - use this forum. Have your "convention" right here. Share drafts over google docs until you have something ready to introduce. Get as many people's input as you like. If you're confused, ask Elu how he did it. Cause you know, he did the exact same thing you are trying to do, and he did it last summer.
Click to expand...
Or... we could just do it in the way I proposed. I'm sorry if you're frustrated because I'm not using the procedures you might like me to use but I want this to be as open, public, and wide reaching as possible.
Click to expand...
You still haven't explained how your way is different from mine. What is a convention, and how would it work?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
If you want to simplify things and form a different kind of government, you are free to do so, but you don't need a convention, because you already have one - the RA.
Click to expand...
The RA is not an efficient convention because it does not include non-RA members.
 
Romanoffia:
I could simplify the Constitution and governmental structure very easily and it would result in a more democratic and more responsive government. But, people like to accumulate power and hang onto it and any changes in the status quo would be a no-no. :P
Click to expand...
Yes, the greatest enemy of progress are those most interested in maintaining "traditional" power structures.

Maybe we could get rid of the constitution all together and have a charter. A condition could be that we could not exceed a word count that is three times the number of current members of the RA. :lol: :P
 
My point is just that everything you want to do can be done using procedures already in place. If you have a compelling reason to do it a different way, or our procedures are inadequate for what you want to do, I'm all ears. But so far, all you have done is assert that our procedures are inadequate, and have not gone into any detail about how.
 
A convention I think wouldn't take much more of a different form than what the RA does now. We had a separate forum for constitutional changes last time, but other than that it was no different.

I think a lot of people recognized that the current constitution was an improvement on the old one, a slight improvement, though not everything was ironed out completely. I think it was Blue Wolf who labelled it as little more than the changing of a few words around, rather than the wholesale change that some people wanted because it was a battleground with some of the slight changes. (not saying I necessary agree with that - but that view was raised)

There are several ways wholesale change could be achieve, we could go through what we did last time, have a thread that discusses each major issue and then a final proposal for that particular section is drafted out and added to the working draft of the constitution. This was a lengthy process, and did yield some results.

The other option is for someone to draft a new constitution and post the complete document and get input here. I think that could work better.

Most of the issues I think people have relate to cultural problems. I do think that we have some members of the Regional Assembly that like to cause trouble for the sake of causing trouble. We are a massively democratic and open region, that will happen sometimes. We do however need to balance our democratic and openness with the ability to protect ourselves as a region.

Other than that, people run to the courts a lot and then get very annoyed when they don't get the answer they want. Can this be changed via legislation? I'm not sure. Seems like a cultural change to me. People need to be more willing to discuss things first before running to the court, and sometimes getting input into what the sections mean, before we have review after review after the review. Dare I say it, but the Fiqh is a good opportunity for people to discuss and to work out differences that they have, not legally binding sure - but its there for people to make use of.

We have also removed the ability of the AG to refuse to take on cases that have no merit whatsoever. This is largely because of the actions of Grosseschnauzer when he was Attorney General - can we find a balance to prevent so many things going to the courts?

Secondly, the recall process. Most of our recall's fail by huge margins. Why do we propose recalls over trivial things? People propose recalls and often vote against their own proposal. I frankly don't get it. This is a cultural issue, people want to recall over minor things. What else can be done to achieve the accountability that people desire when they have a disagreement? What alternative could there be?

Improving the constitution and legal code is a great idea - it's the getting there that can be a headache?
 
I've already said this privately to a couple of people, but I'll say it here too. I think that the best way to approach this is for a small group of people to work on a draft and then present it to a wider audience for discussion, before the small group works on revisions based on the wider discussion. It takes dedication and effort from the drafters, but I think we have the ability and will to do it.

I am certainly willing and able to contribute to a new constitution. I've worked on four constitutions previously, for a range of region sizes and types, and it's a process I enjoy and will put time into if others join me.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Romanoffia:
I could simplify the Constitution and governmental structure very easily and it would result in a more democratic and more responsive government. But, people like to accumulate power and hang onto it and any changes in the status quo would be a no-no. :P
Click to expand...
Yes, the greatest enemy of progress are those most interested in maintaining "traditional" power structures.

Maybe we could get rid of the constitution all together and have a charter. A condition could be that we could not exceed a word count that is three times the number of current members of the RA. :lol: :P
Click to expand...
Actually, the word count idea isn't a bad thought. :P Just kidding.

What I was thinking of is a simplification of government structure. One of the problems is that once you create these various governmental structures, the rules governing those structures and related procedures tend to grow like weeds. When that happens, you get a formulaic and stiff form of entrenched bureaucracy. And it's the entrenched bureaucracy that gives me the willies. In TNP, we've had many constitutions and many forms of governments under those constitutions, and yet it seems to me that them more things change, the more they end up being the same regardless of what constitution we come up with. That end result is not always necessary. But alas, when something good gets proposed, orthodoxy always seems to win out in the end which is why everything ends up becoming Byzantine, so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top