Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

political  game  discord  Trek  WArs  Star  

Latest topics
» Eye of the Storm
Today at 9:23 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Battle of Scales
Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:12 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Discovery Rumination Schedule?
Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:32 am by The Lorerunner

» Turn 9-1068
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:59 am by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Nest of the Koth
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:21 am by SilverDragonRed

» Star Trek TOS essential episodes?
Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:04 pm by NMdum1

» Turn 8-1068
Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:03 am by FreelanceZero

» The end of a journey (Star Trek: Voyager Rumination)
Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:13 pm by NMdum1

» Is The Federation in Star Trek Fascist?
Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:59 pm by NMdum1

You are not connected. Please login or register

Committee for Democratic Constitution (Bradley2000, WhiskeyWhiskers, bingcrosby7, KarbinCry, grifinknight)

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 21 ... 37  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 6 of 37]

I also denounce this attempt to prohibit communists from the framing.

View user profile
I also move to rename our Comitee to "Committee for Democratic Constitution", since there will now probably be other drafts.

WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:It seems counter-intuitive to open this process to the public further. We are already making our decisions public, the entire point of this committee was to make discussions quicker. We should proceed as we have been, present our document at the end and if any object they may show their own proposed constitution for consideration by the public.

We are public to us, the leaders of the insurgency, the provisional government, if you like. Not to the public. Sure, we make no secret of our work, but we have to actively inform the public, and, if our Constitution is to have any support, we also have to adress public opinion.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:I also move to rename our Comitee to "Committee for Democratic Constitution", since there will now probably be other drafts.

WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:It seems counter-intuitive to open this process to the public further. We are already making our decisions public, the entire point of this committee was to make discussions quicker. We should proceed as we have been, present our document at the end and if any object they may show their own proposed constitution for consideration by the public.

We are public to us, the leaders of the insurgency, the provisional government, if you like. Not to the public. Sure, we make no secret of our work, but we have to actively inform the public, and, if our Constitution is to have any support, we also have to adress public opinion.

I agree on the name change.

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I also denounce this attempt to prohibit communists from the framing.

I understand communism as a democracy of one party, which is to say, no democracy. And it is my understanding the one principle we all agree upon is that people deserve representation, which is to say, they deserve a true democracy. And how can someone who doesn't want that advocate for it?

View user profile
Gentlemen,

Here is my draft. Please advise as you see necessary.

To the Dedicated and Honorable Citizens of Echain,

Since the shocking revelation of Zeiss’ parentage, and since his abdication and public proclamation, it has come to the attention of the constitutional framers that transparency has become a perceived issue. We are public servants who wish to remain as transparent as possible; and, as such, we are assembling a committee that will act as a third-party supervisor who will ensure that the four constitutional framers are advancing a constitution that protects each individual citizen from tyranny.

Bearing this in mind, we require the assistance of various individuals from each major city in Echain. We have already filled positions from City Central, Northport, Versberg, and Southport; however, we need volunteers from Aberisk, Plainsdale, Waltens, and Lurem.

Individuals from these cities will be brought into the constitutional drafting process as observers who will provide insight into the individual needs of the citizens; however, your main objective will be to telegraph the framers’ activities to the public in order to reassure the public that the framers are drafting the constitution with the people in mind.

If you believe you are a good fit for this task, please contact me via private message. Thank you for your time; we look forward to working with you to make the best constitution we can.

View user profile
bingcrosby7 wrote:Gentlemen,

Here is my draft. Please advise as you see necessary.

To the Dedicated and Honorable Citizens of Echain,

Since the shocking revelation of Zeiss’ parentage, and since his abdication and public proclamation, it has come to the attention of the constitutional framers that transparency has become a perceived issue. We are public servants who wish to remain as transparent as possible; and, as such, we are assembling a committee that will act as a third-party supervisor who will ensure that the four constitutional framers are advancing a constitution that protects each individual citizen from tyranny.

Bearing this in mind, we require the assistance of various individuals from each major city in Echain. We have already filled positions from City Central, Northport, Versberg, and Southport; however, we need volunteers from Aberisk, Plainsdale, Waltens, and Lurem.

Individuals from these cities will be brought into the constitutional drafting process as observers who will provide insight into the individual needs of the citizens; however, your main objective will be to telegraph the framers’ activities to the public in order to reassure the public that the framers are drafting the constitution with the people in mind.

If you believe you are a good fit for this task, please contact me via private message. Thank you for your time; we look forward to working with you to make the best constitution we can.


I have no objections to this document.

View user profile
That is merely one expression of communism favoured by the authoritarians in China and the USSR, let us not squabble, but instead agree that anyone should make a firm commitment to democracy and rule by the people.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I also denounce this attempt to prohibit communists from the framing.

I understand communism as a democracy of one party, which is to say, no democracy. And it is my understanding the one principle we all agree upon is that people deserve representation, which is to say, they deserve a true democracy. And how can someone who doesn't want that advocate for it?

My primary objection to communism as part of the founding is this: we guarantee rights and privileges to the individuals--this is made apparent in the wording of our bill of rights--however, communism forgoes individual rights and, instead, advances collective and group rights. As such, I think communism should stand separate from the constitution. There should not be a ban on communist parties and communist legislation, but communism, again, should not have a place at the table if we are attempting to draft a constitution that protects individual liberties.

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:That is merely one expression of communism favoured by the authoritarians in China and the USSR, let us not squabble, but instead agree that anyone should make a firm commitment to democracy and rule by the people.

...and we understand communism as marxism and marxism-leninism and maoism. "Soft" communism is socialism. At least this is how I understand it, and use it.

View user profile
Also gentlemen, I made it no secret during the convention that I was distrustful of Zeiss' investigation. I had Zeiss followed, I am currently asking for the financial records he used to apparently find his heritage to be made public. As such I think it better for this to play out separately and wait until Zeiss' heritage be verified before assuming he is telling the truth.

View user profile
I wrote a brief for our advocates:

"So, for now:

  • We are only making a draft of the constitution, which will then be voted upon by the people to become actual Constitution
  • We are making a (mostly representative) democratic constitution, where each person will have their say in the Government
  • We welcome public opinion


Then, you present that which we have already decided upon - the Bill of Rights, and republican system."

Just so you dont have to write your own, I think we can agree on what I wrote.

WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:Also gentlemen, I made it no secret during the convention that I was distrustful of Zeiss' investigation. I had Zeiss followed, I am currently asking for the financial records he used to apparently find his heritage to be made public. As such I think it better for this to play out separately and wait until Zeiss' heritage be verified before assuming he is telling the truth.

Well, our steps make sense even if he is lying. We should be in contact with the public.

EDIT: The one thing that changes is the posibility for monarchy, and I slightly prefer republic, but it is not really an issue for me - either way is fine with me, so I have no horse in this race.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:I wrote a brief for our advocates:

"So, for now:

  • We are only making a draft of the constitution, which will then be voted upon by the people to become actual Constitution
  • We are making a (mostly representative) democratic constitution, where each person will have their say in the Government
  • We welcome public opinion


Then, you present that which we have already decided upon - the Bill of Rights, and republican system."

Just so you dont have to write your own, I think we can agree on what I wrote.

WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:Also gentlemen, I made it no secret during the convention that I was distrustful of Zeiss' investigation. I had Zeiss followed, I am currently asking for the financial records he used to apparently find his heritage to be made public. As such I think it better for this to play out separately and wait until Zeiss' heritage be verified before assuming he is telling the truth.

Well, our steps make sense even if he is lying. We should be in contact with the public.

EDIT: The one thing that changes is the posibility for monarchy, and I slightly prefer republic, but it is not really an issue for me - either way is fine with me, so I have no horse in this race.

Even if Zeiss is lying, which it looks as though he isn't, the trouble we're facing in the face of an alleged lie exposes the weaknesses in a constitutional monarchy; I advance the motion that we should create a republic that operates by means of a representative democratic system.

View user profile
It doesn't really matter. Even if we had a monarchy, did any of us intend to give it more than vestigial power? Republic is just a cleaner solution, and Zeiss's actions make it easier to just break away from monarchy. We should use that.

Also, I propose bradley edits the first post with the names of our supporters, as to show our political strenght and mandate.

View user profile
I agree entirely to the position of ridding us of the monarchy, but let us make sure it is obvious the move is not due to Zeiss. Should he later be uncovered as a fraud our proposal would be tarnished by its association.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:It doesn't really matter. Even if we had a monarchy, did any of us intend to give it more than vestigial power? Republic is just a cleaner solution, and Zeiss's actions make it easier to just break away from monarchy. We should use that.

Also, I propose bradley edits the first post with the names of our supporters, as to show our political strenght and mandate.

I shall

View user profile
May I take the burden of drafting our first proper public release? It will be published after review from all of us, so I don't overstep my bounds even unknowingly.

WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I agree entirely to the position of ridding us of the monarchy, but let us make sure it is obvious the move is not due to Zeiss. Should he later be uncovered as a fraud our proposal would be tarnished by its association.

Well, a republic is simply more democratic. Easy, independent reason behind it.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:May I take the burden of drafting our first proper public release? It will be published after review from all of us, so I don't overstep my bounds even unknowingly.

WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I agree entirely to the position of ridding us of the monarchy, but let us make sure it is obvious the move is not due to Zeiss. Should he later be uncovered as a fraud our proposal would be tarnished by its association.

Well, a republic is simply more democratic. Easy, independent reason behind it.

I agree that makes us three and thus the motion passes.

View user profile
OOC: I'm just about out of time (I have about 15 more minutes); I'm teaching a class for the next hour and a half. I believe three framers are currently online. If you would like to itemize a list for my vote, please do so; or, if you don't need my vote, proceed with the voting process as long as a majority (in the case of my absence, the three of you) rules. I will return to my computer as soon as the class lets out. Best of luck.

View user profile
Death Penalty
Passed by 4 votes to 0 has been banned
Is it to be in the bill of rights? - 1 vote for against 0

Judiciary
In severe cases (life punishment) - 1 vote against 1 (fttb)
Limitations of jury system to non-criminal with exception of treason, sedition, rebellion - 2 votes against 0

System of governance
Passed Republic by 4 votes to 0

Advocacy and outreach to the public
Passed Approach deputies to advocate for our work and find out the public opinion and suggestions - 3 votes to 0

So, that clears it. I will now concentrate on advocacy for a while, and the only real issue standing is that of judiciary system, where I already cat my vote (one against and one for)

View user profile
Oh right, quickly, death penalty ban in the BoR? I need it for the press release, so our BoR is complete.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:Oh right, quickly, death penalty ban in the BoR? I need it for the press release, so our BoR is complete.

Didn't we unanimously add it to the BoR?

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:Oh right, quickly, death penalty ban in the BoR? I need it for the press release, so our BoR is complete.

Yes put it in the Bill Of Rights.

View user profile
Honourable gentlemen I move that we suspend our discussions for the day.


OOC: it is currently 2:30 am here and I wont last much longer. What time do you think you can be back online at?.

View user profile
I will vote against 'jury for matters of life punishment.'

And for the elimination of the death penalty being enshrined.

View user profile
bradley2000 wrote:Honourable gentlemen I move that we suspend our discussions for the day.


OOC: it is currently 2:30 am here and I wont last much longer. What time do you think you can be back online at?.

OOC: I usually wake up at around 9-10am PST.



Last edited by bingcrosby7 on Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 37]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 21 ... 37  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum