Checks and balances, a neccessary component for stable government. With this bill I propose the creation of the Senate of Nomiblog.
106a) The Senate shall have the following powers.
i) Members of Senate shall have the power to veto the Baron's special voting rules rendering any vote that counts as two (2) to count as only one (1). The Senate must vote each time any member wishes to veto the Barons double vote. All Senators must vote and absention from voting shall be counted as a vote of nay.
ii) Voting amonst Senators shall be in the form of "Nay" for no and "Yea" for yes.
iii) Members of Senate shall recieve the title of Senator and the compensation of 1 QI'yaH per week while they are in office.
106b) Once all Senators have been elected and the Senate is in Session the Baron(ess) must cast their vote no later than 48 hours prior to the time vote tallying will take place. This will ensure that the Senate has time to review each use of the Baron's double vote.
106c)The following chart shall govern how many Senators are required for a given population.
1-5 citizens 3 Senators
6-10 citizens 3 Senators
11-20 citizens 7 Senators
21-35 citizens 11 Senators
36-50 citizens 11 Senators
106d) Senators shall be chosen by the people in the same manner as the Baron. Candidates will post their candidacy and the people shall vote for or against them.
106d1) The first Senate will not begin until all seats have been filled.
106e) Senators will remain in office for a total of 4 weeks. A week shall be defined as the length of time between one Administrative Summary to the next. This 4 week term shall be known as a "term".
106a) The Senate shall have the following powers.
i) Members of Senate shall have the power to veto the Baron's special voting rules rendering any vote that counts as two (2) to count as only one (1). The Senate must vote each time any member wishes to veto the Barons double vote. All Senators must vote and absention from voting shall be counted as a vote of nay.
ii) Voting amonst Senators shall be in the form of "Nay" for no and "Yea" for yes.
iii) Members of Senate shall recieve the title of Senator and the compensation of 1 QI'yaH per week while they are in office.
106b) Once all Senators have been elected and the Senate is in Session the Baron(ess) must cast their vote no later than 48 hours prior to the time vote tallying will take place. This will ensure that the Senate has time to review each use of the Baron's double vote.
106c)The following chart shall govern how many Senators are required for a given population.
1-5 citizens 3 Senators
6-10 citizens 3 Senators
11-20 citizens 7 Senators
21-35 citizens 11 Senators
36-50 citizens 11 Senators
106d) Senators shall be chosen by the people in the same manner as the Baron. Candidates will post their candidacy and the people shall vote for or against them.
106d1) The first Senate will not begin until all seats have been filled.
106e) Senators will remain in office for a total of 4 weeks. A week shall be defined as the length of time between one Administrative Summary to the next. This 4 week term shall be known as a "term".
14 comments:
Yes. It's my bill, of course I think it's a good idea.
Yes, for more bureaucracy has always, and always will, make things better.
yesss
(You feel compelled, as you have all day long, to count this a "yes" vote. We like structure that clearly states who shall be holding the One Ring, or any of the Minor Rings.)
No, and I'm happy to say that.
You're proposing a bill that involves an extra multi-person election every 4 weeks, plus extra elections every time I vote. So like, nearly doubling the number of elections the game requires, just for the dubious benefit of eliminating the Baron's double-yes power.
Why not just propose a rule that says "The Baron's votes no longer count double. Everyone who's not the Baron gains 1 QI'yaH each week." I'd be more likely to vote for that.
But I'm still happy either way.
No again. Happy to be redundant.
Also happy to point out that by forcing a player to vote 48 hours before others have to, you're essentially making it so that player can't vote on late-developing bills.
This encourages posting at the last moment to effectively eliminate a particular player from the game.
You're not just depriving the Baron of his ability to double-vote, you're depriving the Baron of his ability to vote at all.
That's specifically against the spirit of the Original 8 Rules, which set a slightly random time for when the weeks end so that players are encouraged to post bills early, not late.
I'm happy to say that's foolish and dangerous.
You bring up some very good points, so good that I feel I must provide a response to your concerns. But first let me say this, dubious this bill is not. Remember, when you, the Baron vote it cancels out one of your citizen's votes, it's as if their vote does not matter. Tell me which is more dubious?
I could have easily posted a bill that says "The Baron's votes no longer count double. Everyone who's not the Baron gains 1 QI'yaH each week." but that seems against the nature of Nomiblog and extremely boring. Let's say you post a bill this week and the next I post one which would counter it, it's childish at best and a waste of time.
The people voted in favor of a having a Baron and with that position came the power to cast a heavier vote than their own. It would be an insult to them to ask that they now vote for a bill that goes against their previous judgement.
The time limitation was simply my way of preventing the Baron from voting at the last minute thus leaving the proposed Senate little to no time to notice or react. Perhaps, dear Baron, you feel there is a better solution to this? I am open to discussion and comment here. Perhaps a Senatorial vote tallying time. A period immediatly following when the polls close so as everyone, including the Baron gets the same amount of time to vote. The Senate could use that time, say 24 hours prior to vote tallying to discuss a veto.
I hope this helps you baron, and I welcome further discussion.
I happily point out that part 106c reads...
"1-5 citizens 3 Senators
6-10 citizens 3 Senators
11-20 citizens 7 Senators
21-35 citizens 11 Senators
36-50 citizens 11 Senators"
Aside from this being unclear about what to do if we get to 50 citizens (If we ever had more than 50 citizens in Nomiblog, I would be very happy indeed), it's also a bit odd.
Wouldn't that be more elegant as:
"1-10 citizens 3 Senators
11-20 citizens 7 Senators
21+ citizens 11 Senators"
Oh well, I'm happy either way. Though I suspect I'll be a tiny bit happier if this bill somehow fails to pass. Happy Happy Joy Joy.
It makes me very happy to pretend I'm so terribly alarmed and pissed off.
Look at me! Look at me! I'm happy and pretending! Happy happy Baron!
Happily interesting.
Kevin's post is basically saying "The people voted the Baron power, so it would be wrong to propose to remove that power." Yet, that is exactly what his Bill #106 is trying to do.
He even says that is the point of his action, but that he feels it's somehow better to invoke all this extra bureaucracy to subtly alter a previous law, rather than clearly and honestly repeal or amend said law. He fails to draw attention to the fact that this bill will fleece the pockets of the Senate at the cost of hardships endured by a minority. Typical pork from a typical politician.
I personally feel there was no problem with proposing a rule that would amend or overrule a previous rule. If we are going to do so, it would make me happier to be honest and obvious and forthright about it. Not subtle and bureaucratic. Oh, well, I suppose either will do fine, as I will remain stalwart and happy through it all.
I do feel removing someone's right to vote is a slippery slope.
Not that I won't be happy to slide down a slippery slope. I'm quite fond of tobagganing, which I imagine it to resemble at least until such time as we hit the bottom.
But I'm sure the bottom will be a happy place as well.
Just the same, once it's been done once to one citizen, the Facists may try to do it to us all. Assuming of course someone proposes a bill that appoints some Facists. That would no doubt enable my happiness even further.
I feel I must respond to these accusations. I in no way intend this bill to take away the right to vote from anyone. The only vote that would potentially be vetoed would be the Baron's second vote. The Baron would still get to vote, it would simply be worth only one vote.
I would also like to add that, "Typical pork from a typical politician", "foolish", and "fascist", ...Damn, it makes me very happy to pretend to be this offended.
No. I've changed my vote, for while I feel that more bureaucracy is always better, I agree with the spirit of not taking away voting rights.
Because the bill says "The Baron MUST cast their vote 48 hours before..." this does create both a disenfranchisement (for bills that aren't posted with more lead time than that) and a potential rules kerfuffle, as it leads one to ask what happens if the Baron does not post his/her vote before that time.
Ultimately, I like the idea of a senate (perhaps to hold hearings and confirm nominees), but not in this instance.
No with an ouch! Much, much to much. Makes me head hurt.
My apologies to Kevin, as it is hard for me to read what level of sarcasm is in his complaints. I may have actually struck a nerve in all my happy acting.
I am very happy to see that my hollow and greatly exaggerated claims are having an effect. What an interesting exercise in the power of lobbying.
For the record, I would have no trouble at all with this Bill if it said the Baron can only use his double-vote if done 48 hours in advance. In other words, if I could still vote on late-breaking bills at any time, but only get my double-yes power if doing so in advance. Such an edit or amendment would stop all my happy protest and buffoonery in it's tracks.
Well, not ALL of it. I am the Baron after all.
This being a game of voting and politics, I felt it only right and happy that I pull out all the stops in my lobbying. And since it's in character as his most nobly full-of-himself highness, The Baron of All Nomiblog, I could not help myself. It makes me most happy to be a pompous windbag.
In retrospect, I wish the fool law had passed to some degree, so that Kevin could take on the role that enables him to insult me and me to take it stoicly and happily. Oh, wait, he doesn't need a role to do that. I'm already fair and happy game. Tis good to be the King, er, Baron.
Kevin said: "I in no way intend this bill to take away the right to vote from anyone."
Yet, if a similar rule were already in effect:
I would be unable to vote on Bill #27 at all
and I would only be able to vote on Bill #106 if the Administrator chose to end this week after 9am on Thursday. Right now, that's fine, as one person is both Baron and Administrator. But should someone ever unseat me of either position, any vote a Baron placed on Monday after 8 am could potentially be in violation of the rules.
Post a Comment