|
Post by jeremihe on Aug 29, 2017 1:09:40 GMT
MAN THAT WAS A LOT OF READING,but um good job!
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Aug 29, 2017 4:03:44 GMT
MAN THAT WAS A LOT OF READING,but um good job! Do you think it looks good?
|
|
|
Post by jeremihe on Aug 29, 2017 6:27:18 GMT
I saw some small inconsistencies in the formatting ,but pretty good overall .I'm mean you got as diplomatic as you could with a monarchy in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Aug 29, 2017 13:44:02 GMT
Formatting inconsistencies?...0_0
*OCD mode activated*
MUST FIX @_@
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Aug 29, 2017 13:54:36 GMT
(1) After thinking about it, I think I still disagree with the Upper House being inaccessible to citizens. I just don't see the need. Like we have C-SPAN in real life, right? This might be an issue we want to vote on formally, and if I lose then I lose and we can move on! (2) Are we okay with calling the Upper House the "House of Lords" or are still other name ideas? (3) After thinking about it, I am okay with excluding Upper House members from the The Assembly of All, but unsure of whether we need to exclude people who have executive branch posts.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Aug 29, 2017 14:10:25 GMT
(1) A vote may be necessary, yes.
(2) We can call it House of Lords, but I was honestly content with just "Upper House". Creative people, help us please ;-; xD
(3) I can accept having upper house members excluded but not the Executive.
|
|
|
Post by Bymaria on Aug 29, 2017 15:38:24 GMT
(1) After thinking about it, I think I still disagree with the Upper House being inaccessible to citizens. I just don't see the need. Like we have C-SPAN in real life, right? This might be an issue we want to vote on formally, and if I lose then I lose and we can move on! (2) Are we okay with calling the Upper House the "House of Lords" or are still other name ideas? (3) After thinking about it, I am okay with excluding Upper House members from the The Assembly of All, but unsure of whether we need to exclude people who have executive branch posts. I agree that the upper house should be accessible; I don't really understand why it shouldn't be. I'm honestly not too fussed about the upper house name: as long as it's nothing ridiculous. Also I do think upper house members should be excluded from the assembly of all.
|
|
|
Post by jeremihe on Aug 29, 2017 16:17:32 GMT
(1) After thinking about it, I think I still disagree with the Upper House being inaccessible to citizens. I just don't see the need. Like we have C-SPAN in real life, right? This might be an issue we want to vote on formally, and if I lose then I lose and we can move on! (2) Are we okay with calling the Upper House the "House of Lords" or are still other name ideas? (3) After thinking about it, I am okay with excluding Upper House members from the The Assembly of All, but unsure of whether we need to exclude people who have executive branch posts. I agree that the upper house should be accessible; I don't really understand why it shouldn't be. I'm honestly not too fussed about the upper house name: as long as it's nothing ridiculous. Also I do think upper house members should be excluded from the assembly of all. I guess I agree with that.I didn't think about it much when I was reading it at first,but looking back I think it would be a nice change.
|
|
|
Post by Bymaria on Aug 29, 2017 19:29:57 GMT
I've decided that, in my opinion, the executive should be allowed to vote in the assembly of all. The prime minister will be elected based on values (along with goals), so should not have to remain impartial/objective and thus should be allowed to vote in the assembly of all.
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Aug 30, 2017 12:56:40 GMT
I've decided that, in my opinion, the executive should be allowed to vote in the assembly of all. The prime minister will be elected based on values (along with goals), so should not have to remain impartial/objective and thus should be allowed to vote in the assembly of all. Okay, great, so we might have a compromise on that issue. I think I'm going to start a poll for the Upper House view-ability issue.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Aug 31, 2017 20:15:53 GMT
I've decided that, in my opinion, the executive should be allowed to vote in the assembly of all. The prime minister will be elected based on values (along with goals), so should not have to remain impartial/objective and thus should be allowed to vote in the assembly of all. Okay, great, so we might have a compromise on that issue. I think I'm going to start a poll for the Upper House view-ability issue. I'll update the draft to reflect this compromise when I can; a bit occupied at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Sept 1, 2017 21:15:20 GMT
Okay, great, so we might have a compromise on that issue. I think I'm going to start a poll for the Upper House view-ability issue. I'll update the draft to reflect this compromise when I can; a bit occupied at the moment. Sounds good - if you're busy, I can also see if I can write it in as well. Also, per the gameside poll, it does look like a majority would prefer the upper house be accessible. With those matters dispensed with, are there any outstanding issues to address? Would love to get this voted on and get elections going!
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Sept 2, 2017 18:18:32 GMT
I don't believe there are any more.
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Sept 3, 2017 5:24:53 GMT
Questions: 1. Is a member of the upper house still a member of the Assembly of All? Depending on the size of the Upper House, the two-thirds vote could really impact the vote made by the Assembly of All IF an Upper Houser is allowed to vote on something as part of the Assembly after having voted for it in the Upper House.
2. Since it is still up for debate, we could called the Upper House the "Voted Assembly" or the "Chosen Assembly", or "Voted House",etc.
3. A maximum number of judges for the judiciary (or at least a way to derive a max number via votes from the Upper House or Assembly) should be figured out. A rogue PM could appoint a ton of judges in their favor and own the judiciary (FDR, anyone?).
4. Just an opinion, the judiciary should be fleshed out a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Sept 3, 2017 5:28:38 GMT
Also, for the two-thirds majority, it should be made clear that it is two-thirds rounding up (i.e. out of 5 UH members, we'd need 4 out of 5 to get two thirds )
|
|