Dawn of a New Era

[Darth Woodrack he/him]

I agree. Also, Furam, you're not dead to me.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Darth Woodrack

[old man moomba he/him]

So, do most people want to do Mac's two party thing?

[Darth Woodrack he/him]

I don't even know what that is. My brain is in law mode, not politics mode.

[old man moomba he/him]

4 hours ago, Ookla the [REDACTED] said:

I had an idea for a legislature with 2 levels.  It would fit the republic idea, but would help smaller guilds remain involved in the government. One is for the great guilds, the other for the rest. 

In the one for great guilds, each great guild gets one rep. 

In the one for the other guilds, they get some form of proportional representation. 

The thing is, each RPer can only count toward 1 guild, so if you count toward making your guild a great guild, whatever that means, you can’t count toward any other guilds, great or not.

Essentially, every law that either group tries to pass has to make it through both groups, unless the group that started it gets unanimous agreement. 

 

 

I also also think that normal guilds would need to Be more than one person for them to be allowed in the legislature. 

This.

[Darth Woodrack he/him]

It seems good. I'll probably find some flaw tomorrow, but I was busy perfectly nick picking this code of laws. It is still in process, and tell me if I missed something.

[Furamirionind They/Any/All]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Dapper said:

So, do most people want to do Mac's two party thing?

I like the idea, but I don't want to say we should enact it until we actually clarify some things with it and make sure we all know what we are enacting. (also with a "republic" being tied for 3-4th place as far as systems go, we should really redo that vote before deciding.  Perhaps people really do want "Democracy - Rule by the mob". I don't, put perhaps most do.)

I am in the middle of taking a final right now... But afterwards, I will be available to talk more. : )

[Darth Woodrack he/him]

DON"T GET ON 17th SHARD DURING AS TEST! WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

[Furamirionind They/Any/All]

8 hours ago, Darth Woodrack said:

DON"T GET ON 17th SHARD DURING AS TEST! WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

It is a open book test at home. Don't worry, I can't get in trouble. Lol. I appreciate you caring though : )

*********

Done now. 

(Hopefully) Quick question that I think is relevent to the Gov (I am totally not obsessed about this topic...), how many active guilds do we have, and how many active homeless do we have (regardless of (lack of) guild alligiance? 

Not counting the DA as a relevent guild to the gov, we estimate 4 great guilds off the bat right? (TUBA, GBs, Theives, and a fourth I can't remember)

I am currently trying to get an idea of specifically how this could work, using Mac's 2 branches idea.

I think how the guilds pick their Reps should be an internal affair.

Ideally, we want a system where there is still some work you have to do to get the gov position so that it is still rewarding, however a role of some sort will hopefully be common enough that everyone interested will get a chance to participate in one way or another.

[Archer he/him]

Last time I counted, we had about 28 active RPers. But you should only plan on about half of them being involved regularly in this. For example, TUBA has three or do people who have expressed interest in being involved. 

Guilds: Ghostbloods, TUBA, DA, Thieves, Canton of Combat, GUESS, Sentinels, Precursors, Liebrary, Newcago Court. There's more, but I can't remember them all at this time. 

[Gancho Libre he/him]

17 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

Mraizearchy - I know this is a joke, but can someone please explain to me what this is? Thanks! Lol.

 

I just want to point out that THIS HERE PEICE O' TERMINOLOGY was invented by ME.

Which, of course, is why I voted for it.

[Furamirionind They/Any/All]

15 minutes ago, Ookla the Libre said:

I just want to point out that THIS HERE PEICE O' TERMINOLOGY was invented by ME.

Which, of course, is why I voted for it.

...Thank you Gancho. Thank you...

You have any ideas for the gov? These are my thoughts so far: (I haven't got past elections yet)

Elections:
1. Each guild that wants to participate in the gov must conduct a census of how many RPers consider this to be their "primary" guild for the purpose of this. (Must have at least 2)
2. Guild picks one of the people who consider this to be their primary guild to be the guilds rep.
3. If the census dictates this is a great guild, the rep automatically gets a spot in the senate unoposed. If this is a minor guild, they have to compete between 4 spots.
4. Each guild gets 10 votes, plus an additional 2 votes for each person the census says they have in their guild.

Naturally all of this could be changed in-world or OOC if we don't think it would work, however I really do not like #4 currently.  There is no incentive to vote for a guild that is not your own.  We could try STV (single transferable vote), but even then I still don't think it incentivizes voting for anyone other than yourself. (And I forget much of the details on how it works) And randomly breaking ties would be silly.  There either needs to be something to bring in guilds that aren't running for office, or an incentive to vote for someone else...

Either that or I am completely looking at this the wrong way, which I am starting to think more and more might be the case.

(Oh and I am thinking 8 seats of gov may be a decent starting point? For math and logistics anyway?)

Edited December 14, 2018 by Furamirionind

[old man moomba he/him]

One trough three look good, but I'm confused about four. Is it the number of represntives each guild gets? 

[Furamirionind They/Any/All]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Dapper said:

One trough three look good, but I'm confused about four. Is it the number of represntives each guild gets? 

Umm... oops, I think I forgot to put the whole #4 in there... this is about what it should be:

4. Each guild gets 10 votes, plus an additional 2 votes for each person the census says they have in their guild.  They can then use these votes to vote per position in gov. (An example would be let's say there are 4 gov positions being run for. the keepers have 16 votes because they have 3 members according to the census. They could then add 16 votes to 4 differant guilds to try to get them elected. They will first vote for themselves (16 points), the for the Diagram (16 points), then the Liebrary(16 points) and so on until they hit the maximum spots being run for.)

... sorry, does that make any sense?

edit: this is... more functional than I originally thought it would be when starting the post, but I still don't like it much...

edit: edit: in this model I am working on, each guild is only allowed a maximum of 1 rep in the gov.  I don't think this is something we want to change though.  Though I imagine in-world it would be discussed a bit...

Edited December 14, 2018 by Furamirionind

[old man moomba he/him]

I guess. For some reason I assumed they would be used for voting for laws.

[Furamirionind They/Any/All]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Dapper said:

I guess. For some reason I assumed they would be used for voting for laws.

That is an interesting idea, though I think that is more along the lines of a democracy where I was planning a republic as I personally am more fond of that idea.  They could both work though...

In this, laws would be voted on by the reps in the gov positions, with each person getting 1 vote.

-------------------------------------------------------

Adding on to what Ookla the [redacted] sugested, I didnt catch part of your idea the first time reading it, but I really like it, however, I also kind of want there to be a Chancellor/President too... (though I am fine without one with your idea). (I am calling the great guild's side the Senate, and the minor guilds side the House, for ease of communication)

If the House or Senate votes unanimously on a law, it passes automatically (can see some problems with this in the future, but they can probably be dealt with in-world). If they are short 1 vote of voting unanamously, there are 2 ways the law can still pass.  Either the Chancellor can step in and fill that vote by themselves, or the other branch of government can vote on it.  However, the second branch must vote unanimously to fill that single vote.

If a law is short by 2 votes of being unanimous, then the Chancellor AND the other branch must agree to enact the law. (Again, the other branch must vote unanimously)

I like the idea, but the biggest problem I see in it I think is that if you can't convince the chancellor or all of your branch to pass the law, it is basically dead...

 

If we go along these lines of thinking, I think the chancellor should also be allowed to create laws, however they get to pick the side of gov that votes on it.  I like this too, but I want some sort of repercussion to having the Chancellor's law fail... but I can't think of anything yet...

Thoughts? (Hopefully it makes sense. Believe me, it isnt as complicated as I made it sound.)

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Furamirionind

[MacThorstenson he/him]

56 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

1. Each guild that wants to participate in the gov must conduct a census of how many RPers consider this to be their "primary" guild for the purpose of this. (Must have at least 2)

I think that we need to be careful for this one. I think that the mods should conduct the census, and then everyone PM a mod with what guilds they want to be counted for. This will allow some level of secrecy and allow people to not be ousted as spies. I'm working on creating a list of all the guilds and players. Not counting the ones who just added their characters in the thread.

[Darth Woodrack he/him]

I think that's good. Just clarifying, becuase of the nature of the guild, the Precursors, will not be involved in politics. We are law enforcement which means that we cannot, and should not, be creating the laws. Just making that clear.

[old man moomba he/him]

If you're gonna enforce the laws, you will need to be involved in politics. Who's gonna tell you to enforce the laws. 

[Darth Woodrack he/him]

I mean, they won't put forward representatives, or run for office, as Precursor members. We will be involved, with the leaders, but we will not show favoritism.

[Ataraxian Wist she/her]

3 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

That is an interesting idea, though I think that is more along the lines of a democracy where I was planning a republic as I personally am more fond of that idea.  They could both work though...

In this, laws would be voted on by the reps in the gov positions, with each person getting 1 vote.

-------------------------------------------------------

Adding on to what Ookla the [redacted] sugested, I didnt catch part of your idea the first time reading it, but I really like it, however, I also kind of want there to be a Chancellor/President too... (though I am fine without one with your idea). (I am calling the great guild's side the Senate, and the minor guilds side the House, for ease of communication)

If the House or Senate votes unanimously on a law, it passes automatically (can see some problems with this in the future, but they can probably be dealt with in-world). If they are short 1 vote of voting unanamously, there are 2 ways the law can still pass.  Either the Chancellor can step in and fill that vote by themselves, or the other branch of government can vote on it.  However, the second branch must vote unanimously to fill that single vote.

If a law is short by 2 votes of being unanimous, then the Chancellor AND the other branch must agree to enact the law. (Again, the other branch must vote unanimously)

I like the idea, but the biggest problem I see in it I think is that if you can't convince the chancellor or all of your branch to pass the law, it is basically dead...

 

If we go along these lines of thinking, I think the chancellor should also be allowed to create laws, however they get to pick the side of gov that votes on it.  I like this too, but I want some sort of repercussion to having the Chancellor's law fail... but I can't think of anything yet...

Thoughts? (Hopefully it makes sense. Believe me, it isnt as complicated as I made it sound.)

 

I stand in opposition to this system for the following reasons:

1. It requires a unanimous decision by at least one house to pass anything. Whether this is the unanimous decision of the House or the Senate passing the legislation or that of the other house, some group has to be unanimous. This makes it nearly impossible for the government to enact just laws if they might incriminate a member of the governing body, essentially forcing the entire government to uphold the corruption of a minority of its members. This is pretty bad.

2. There is no distinction as to who can pass which laws. This defeats the point of having seperate houses for Great Guilds and Minor Guilds, as the House can basically make laws for WAY more people than it represents and the Senate can't really stop them.

3. The Chancellor basically counts as an entire body of government. He still has to open the voting up to one of the other bodies for his own legislation, but at that point his vote is assumed, so they need at least two hours against it or it automatically passes. The Chancellor can basically pass anything he wants by deferring majority-favoring laws to the Senate and minority-favoring ones to the House.

4. There is no veto. If one house passes a law that hurts the other, this system does not include a veto for the attacked house, and that means that they have to wait till it goes into effect and then repeal it. It's a mess.

 

I am definitely in favor of guild representatives, as that allows more people to get a hand in the government if they can form a guild with enough primary members.

I am also in favor of a Chancellor, because the idea makes things fun, but not if this is what they can do.

I will post my alternative soon, for consideration.

[old man moomba he/him]

It's not done yet, we still have to flesh it out, and your objections are great for addressing the problems we have with it still. 

[Darth Woodrack he/him]

My brain is in law mode still, so I didn't notice that.

It should be majority of votes, overall, even if the great guilds have more votes.

I don't think this is a problem. The great guilds, and the Lesser guilds should vote together, with the lesser guilds having less voting power.

That is a problem. Clone wars, Palatine, Galactic empire, emperor.

Put in a veto, upon decision  from an impartial group, if the view is challenged by another guild.

[Furamirionind They/Any/All]

6 minutes ago, Ookla the Palindrome said:

I stand in opposition to this system for the following reasons:

1. It requires a unanimous decision by at least one house to pass anything. Whether this is the unanimous decision of the House or the Senate passing the legislation or that of the other house, some group has to be unanimous. This makes it nearly impossible for the government to enact just laws if they might incriminate a member of the governing body, essentially forcing the entire government to uphold the corruption of a minority of its members. This is pretty bad.

2. There is no distinction as to who can pass which laws. This defeats the point of having seperate houses for Great Guilds and Minor Guilds, as the House can basically make laws for WAY more people than it represents and the Senate can't really stop them.

3. The Chancellor basically counts as an entire body of government. He still has to open the voting up to one of the other bodies for his own legislation, but at that point his vote is assumed, so they need at least two hours against it or it automatically passes. The Chancellor can basically pass anything he wants by deferring majority-favoring laws to the Senate and minority-favoring ones to the House.

4. There is no veto. If one house passes a law that hurts the other, this system does not include a veto for the attacked house, and that means that they have to wait till it goes into effect and then repeal it. It's a mess.

 

I am definitely in favor of guild representatives, as that allows more people to get a hand in the government if they can form a guild with enough primary members.

I am also in favor of a Chancellor, because the idea makes things fun, but not if this is what they can do.

I will post my alternative soon, for consideration.

I like your counter points and look forward to seeing your alternative idea.  I also have a couple alternative ideas, which I will post when I am less tired (from literally having stayed up all night). This was just an idea I was having while typing it, and was trying to flush parts of it out while writing.

One thing though, it doesn't make distinctions between what type of laws can be passed by which seat of gov because I see that as a detail, and I am trying to work from the big picture down.

The one thing I don't want if for this to become a mini USA gov. I want this to be unique to some extent at least.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Furamirionind

[Darth Woodrack he/him]

Yes. These laws could work. Again, missed anything, tell me.

       This is a link

[Ataraxian Wist she/her]

Just now, Furamirionind said:

I like your counter points and look forward to seeing your alternative idea.  I also have a couple alternative ideas, which I will post when I am less tired (from literally having stayed up all night). This was just an idea I was having while typing it, and was trying to flush parts of it out while writing.

One thing though, it doesn't make distinctions between what type of laws can be passed by which seat of gov because I see that as a detail, and I am trying to work from the big picture down.

Great. I figured they were probably just oversights, but I didn't want people to super like it in that state and then end up stuck with it. And yeah, I get the whole staying-up thing. I finally got to bed at, like, 1:00 this morning. Heheheh, I don't make good choices.