Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Trending Topics
Regional Information
The East Pacific brought to you by,
Where to Start?

Social
Discord
IRC
Skype
Steam Group

Roleplay
Regional Atlas
In-Character
News Broadcasts
Out of Character

Government
Executive Offices
Delegate: Yuno
Magisterium
Provost: Drachen
Conclave
Viceroy: Aelitia





Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here!


I'm registered. Where do I start?
When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community!

Username:   Password:
Multiquote ON Multiquote off
Add Reply
Term Limits
Topic Started: Sep 1 2010, 09:59:48 PM (1,220 Views)
Kandarin
Member Avatar
Ferret princess
I would like to suggest to the Magisterium an idea that was brought forward in the past, had merit, but was never fully resolved.

Simply put: The Delegacy should have term limits, restricting an individual to two terms, after which they would be unable to run again.

There are several reasons for this. The first is that, unfortunately, the delegacy of feeder regions like TEP carries implications beyond those that we TEPers apply to it. To us, the Delegacy is a position of responsibility that asks a great deal of those who hold it - prestigious, but asking as much as it grants. To the invader and defender communities, however, a feeder delegacy is the ultimate status and the ultimate prize. Gameplay nations carry status in that community based on having gained such a position and how long they were able to hold it.

These two interpretations are in conflict. And when they come into conflict, we can run into events like what happened six months ago (when Todd tried to rig the election) or previous Delegates' unwillingness to budge when unable to fulfill their office. It's fine that the region is full of invader and defender-types who call it home, and I understand if status in that community is part of what motivates some candidates to run, but the TEP goal of trying new things and growing as a community clashes with the invader/defender honor of remaining in place indefinitely. Our citizens from those NS communities shouldn't be handed a dilemma of choosing between one goal and the other.

The second reason is that the Delegacy should not be treated as a position to hand off to others by TEPers any more than it should be considered a prize. In the past, there have often been very few TEPers willing to seek the Delegacy. Many prominent, capable citizens of TEP have consistently avoided seeking the office in the past, preferring to make it the domain of a few recurring names who, again, are expected to serve indefinitely if they don't screw up too badly. TEP needs an environment in which many people are willing to take the position and also to set it aside. Requiring the position to free up every so often would put it up for consideration by more people - and eliminate the (accurate, but damaging) perception among less politically oriented TEPers that becoming Delegate means being saddled with the responsibility indefinitely.

The last reason is also linked to the most likely objection to the idea - "what if term limits keep a particularly capable individual out of office?" This is not a problem but an opportunity. The best Delegate is one who does not, in fact, act on their own on much. As the excellent example of DFD's Delegacy has shown us, the best role of the Delegate is not a dictator or president but more of a wise personnel manager: the Delegate identifies people capable and trustworthy to delegate roles and responsibilities to, as well as critically analyzing those who currently hold such roles to determine if they need to change or step aside to make room for for others.

The Delegate is there both to help enable others and to regularly hold others accountable. In this respect it is often a thankless job, and (again, using DFD's example) one that often brings its incumbent little respect and a lot of criticism - a far cry from the common perception of the feeder delegate as the one who makes everything happen and rules over the region. But it is the best way to do it, as TEP's growth and development in DFD's term compared to previous Delegacies has shown - and it is a way of doing it that should continue. To this end, Delegates having an eye to those who come after them is only a natural continuation of what Delegates should do anyway.
"Torpored Caitiff Antediluvian"

Quote:
 
ClipSnap says:
Kandarin should just implode from the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
ClipSnap says:
I mean, no nation could ever sustain that many contradicting belief systems and still exist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this is geared toward some kind of initiative, considering the timing and the apparent subject. I guess I should voice what I believe as well.

Quote:
 
I would like to suggest to the Magisterium an idea that was brought forward in the past, had merit, but was never fully resolved.

Simply put: The Delegacy should have term limits, restricting an individual to two terms, after which they would be unable to run again.

Actually, it was argued on whether or not there should be term limits based on how many consecutive terms a delegate could serve, not two terms in totality. Restricting a delegate to only serve two consecutive terms, not two total terms, is something I'd agree with. No one should really serve more than two consecutive terms, especially with the type of region we have. It took me a bit to see that, I admit, but hey, people can in fact change their viewpoints when they've been given more experience and better viewpoints. If he or she wants to run again after that, well, skip at least a term or more. Not painful at all.

Quote:
 
There are several reasons for this. The first is that, unfortunately, the delegacy of feeder regions like TEP carries implications beyond those that we TEPers apply to it. To us, the Delegacy is a position of responsibility that asks a great deal of those who hold it - prestigious, but asking as much as it grants. To the invader and defender communities, however, a feeder delegacy is the ultimate status and the ultimate prize. Gameplay nations carry status in that community based on having gained such a position and how long they were able to hold it.

I feel the people of TEP can and have voted for people who they wanted in the office. No invader or delegate can just come in and take the region (in theory, they can, but they would have to be *voted* in) - I personally would rather vote for someone I trust and believe can do a good job rather than someone trying to take the region. Of course, prior to the days of the concordat, this was not the case.

Quote:
 
These two interpretations are in conflict. And when they come into conflict, we can run into events like what happened six months ago (when Todd tried to rig the election) or previous Delegates' unwillingness to budge when unable to fulfill their office. It's fine that the region is full of invader and defender-types who call it home, and I understand if status in that community is part of what motivates some candidates to run, but the TEP goal of trying new things and growing as a community clashes with the invader/defender honor of remaining in place indefinitely. Our citizens from those NS communities shouldn't be handed a dilemma of choosing between one goal and the other.

I was hoping to not be the subject of this election. Part of the reason I am not running is because I think others can do it and are capable of serving the slot, but also because of what happened last election. For those who have been speaking to me, they'd know that I have not intended on running this term. I appreciate those who have asked me to, but bottom line is, I'd like to see who else is out there for us. Who will step up? Who will answer the call? But let's talk about last election, because I would like to address that. I tried to bring in two outside friends to TEP knowing they would be able to vote. They were interested in NS, but the fact remains, that was wrong, especially since I brought them in so close to elections. I won't deny that. I didn't run in the last elections. Was hard, but ultimately, I didn't think I should and after all the stuff that happened, I really didn't want to. I had to be reminded of this. Bottom line: I did it. It was a lapse in judgment, and it was pretty stupid. It took a while for me to not feel disappointed every time I came onto the forums. I still do feel bad for it. Don't know if I ever*won't* feel bad. *shrugs*

Quote:
 
The second reason is that the Delegacy should not be treated as a position to hand off to others by TEPers any more than it should be considered a prize. In the past, there have often been very few TEPers willing to seek the Delegacy. Many prominent, capable citizens of TEP have consistently avoided seeking the office in the past, preferring to make it the domain of a few recurring names who, again, are expected to serve indefinitely if they don't screw up too badly. TEP needs an environment in which many people are willing to take the position and also to set it aside. Requiring the position to free up every so often would put it up for consideration by more people - and eliminate the (accurate, but damaging) perception among less politically oriented TEPers that becoming Delegate means being saddled with the responsibility indefinitely.

I'd say current TEP is much different than past TEP. I don't really see how restricting... well, one person as it stands right now (perhaps more later), would entice more people to run.

Quote:
 
The last reason is also linked to the most likely objection to the idea - "what if term limits keep a particularly capable individual out of office?" This is not a problem but an opportunity. The best Delegate is one who does not, in fact, act on their own on much. As the excellent example of DFD's Delegacy has shown us, the best role of the Delegate is not a dictator or president but more of a wise personnel manager: the Delegate identifies people capable and trustworthy to delegate roles and responsibilities to, as well as critically analyzing those who currently hold such roles to determine if they need to change or step aside to make room for for others.

I'm a little uncomfortable with responding to this, personally.

Quote:
 
The Delegate is there both to help enable others and to regularly hold others accountable. In this respect it is often a thankless job, and (again, using DFD's example) one that often brings its incumbent little respect and a lot of criticism - a far cry from the common perception of the feeder delegate as the one who makes everything happen and rules over the region. But it is the best way to do it, as TEP's growth and development in DFD's term compared to previous Delegacies has shown - and it is a way of doing it that should continue. To this end, Delegates having an eye to those who come after them is only a natural continuation of what Delegates should do anyway.

And with this too.

Overall, I'm disheartened. I'm not perfect, but really, no one is. Regarding what I did during my term, I have to deal with the pros and cons, the praise and the shame, the ups and the downs. It's not been the funnest of rides. I'm glad I didn't run last term, and I am glad I am not running this term, because I think I needed to not to. I've really been able to connect with the people in TEP, and I've had fun because of it. I don't need to be a delegate to do that. I don't need to hold any position to do that. Plus, let's face it, if I tried to run all the time, that'd be unfair and pretty pathetic. Just wouldn't be right.

I had a lot of fun being a delegate, and one day I'd like to do it again. But not now. Probably not for a while, more I think about it. There was a lot of good I did during it, and it's a shame it ended the way it did, which was mostly my fault. And while I was different than DFD in a few things, I don't think either of us have done a bad job or that one was really good and one was the bane of our written history. Opinions can hurt, you know?

Bottom line is this: thank you. This in a few ways seems like an attack. I was hoping that I'd be able to enjoy these elections and be glad I wouldn't be a spectacle in it, but that hope is kind of not there anymore. Thanks :(

Still, to the Magisterium: I like the idea of delegates being limited in consecutive terms. Like, they can't serve more than two terms. It keeps things spicy and ensures things get shaken up a bit. Maybe the two term serving person can't run for a year after that? I can see the points raised by that, and I think it's fair. But to limit someone (me, for the time being) to two terms in totality... well, I don't really think that's a good solution. I guess you could vote for that too, if you want. That's all up to you.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chancellor Shaw
Member Avatar
Bill Stickers is Innocent
I would like to comment on the two paragraphs that Todd elected to not respond to.

Quote:
 
The last reason is also linked to the most likely objection to the idea - "what if term limits keep a particularly capable individual out of office?" This is not a problem but an opportunity. The best Delegate is one who does not, in fact, act on their own on much. As the excellent example of DFD's Delegacy has shown us, the best role of the Delegate is not a dictator or president but more of a wise personnel manager: the Delegate identifies people capable and trustworthy to delegate roles and responsibilities to, as well as critically analyzing those who currently hold such roles to determine if they need to change or step aside to make room for for others.


I am going to attempt to look at this point from an objective viewpoint, assuming you are not referring directly to Todd here. In that case, this paragraph makes no logical sense. You are assuming that any Delegate who may, at some point in the future, serve two terms and want to run for a third will be a delegate who is acting on their own, like "a dictator or president". Is it not feasible, if not more than likely, that a particularly capable individual would be one who acts for the good of TEP? In fact, the only reason that a Delegate should be elected for a second term, never mind a third, is if they have done a good job in the eyes of the Region. I see no reason to prevent qualified, capable people from being democratically elected to a position.

Quote:
 
The Delegate is there both to help enable others and to regularly hold others accountable. In this respect it is often a thankless job, and (again, using DFD's example) one that often brings its incumbent little respect and a lot of criticism - a far cry from the common perception of the feeder delegate as the one who makes everything happen and rules over the region. But it is the best way to do it, as TEP's growth and development in DFD's term compared to previous Delegacies has shown - and it is a way of doing it that should continue. To this end, Delegates having an eye to those who come after them is only a natural continuation of what Delegates should do anyway.


Every Delegate, in every Region, is unique. This is due to the fact that every person is unique. No two leaders in the history of the world have acted in the same way as each other, and thus I believe that it is shallow to think that the amazing job DFD has done, our second Delegate to ever be elected, is "the best way to do it" and "a way of doing it that should continue". It may be a good model to keep in mind, but it is not the only way things should be done. If we try to curtail the way a Delegate behaves and tell them how they should act and what model to follow, our region will grow stale and slowly die. It is also showing a bias on your part to say "...compared to previous Delegacies has shown..." seeing as how Todd is the only other person up to this point to be democratically elected as Delegate in TEP.

A limit on consecutive terms served may be a good thing to consider. However, in my opinion, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of preventing any person who has served a total of two terms from running again. If you were actually referring to a consecutive term limit, you did not make your point clear.

If you were indeed referring directly to Todd with your suggestions, as it appears you are, that is another matter all together. No single person should ever be legislated out of action because one other person had a bone to pick with them. If Todd were (theoretically, of course, since he has no intention of running this term) elected Delegate, that would be shown as the will of the people, and according to our Concordat that is what counts.
Thank you for your time
Chancellor Shaw, of the Free Land of Moafin
Moafin Wiki: under construction
Moafin Q&A

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
North Harmoneia
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
Chancellor Shaw
Sep 2 2010, 08:22 AM
A limit on consecutive terms served may be a good thing to consider. However, in my opinion, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of preventing any person who has served a total of two terms from running again. If you were actually referring to a consecutive term limit, you did not make your point clear.

While I do think that Kandarin has a point, and while I do think that it's a good one, I think it is crazy to limit a person to two terms of delegacy and then they could never run anymore, ever again. We have to face the fact that NS isn't as lively and full of activity as it once was and we don't have enough resources to run things forever with different people in charge. Point is, before we know it, a time might come when the only persons that might actually be eligible to run are noobs, and all those people who are sensible enough have used up their TWO TERMS.

However, I am totally in favor of setting a limit on consecutive terms and making clear detail as to when one can run again after using up the alotted and permitted terms.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oh My Days
No Avatar
You got blood on my Suit.
Personally, my preference would be:

1. No delegate may serve consecutive terms.
2. A former delegate must wait one year before becoming delegate again.

I believe that we must not allow any individual to become the region, in the eyes of most NSers. To a typical player, Fudgetopia was TSP for a long time, Krulltopia is TP (although, you could argue that there is a certain truth in that :P) and increasingly, Southern Bellz is becoming TSP. I don't think that this is a good thing at all, and think it is inevitable in any delegate's second term, where far too many players won't have known a time before the given delegate of a region. This reinforces the idea that feeders are heavily cliqued and that new players can't run for the delegacy.

You might worry that TEP could then run out of candidates, but an often-changing delegate will encourage more candidates to come forward. Look how few people stood each time, this further discourages new candidates. Ideally, we should have 4 or 5 people standing each time, and there's nothing wrong with people standing without expecting to win. This can be a great learning curve for prospective future delegates, who would then be able to ask for advice from the people who didn't vote for them. New players also have a dramatically different perspective, and might bring forward some very good ideas in their campaigns, which they would otherwise be too shy to submit, or not know where to take them.

We should also aggressively advertise elections on the WFE and RMB (telegramming the whole region would be ideal, if we have enough people who can help), and a delegate who is standing for a second term has a disincentive to highlight this. I'm not knocking DFD, or accusing her of trying to hide the elections (I don't even know if she's standing), but I think that notice should be up for about a month, and much more explicitly than it is. A maximum of one consecutive term would also reduce the bragging rights that go with the position, as raiders and defenders know that they can't just use the position for status for very long. This will further encourage people to stand because they want to serve the region, not their own egos.

A year is not really a long time for a successful delegate to wait, and neither is it difficult to find three suitable candidates in 18 months. To argue that it is, would be to say that there is no-one suitable to be delegate, other than Todd or DFD. Both of them were first-time feeder delegates (I think?) and both are widely viewed as tremendously successful delegates (correctly, IMO). This won't cause TEP to run out of people to be delegate, but stagnation and cliqued government would do.

I'm opposed to limits on the number of total terms a delegate may serve, as I don't see why a good delegate who stays around shouldn't serve again, so long as new players are given a chance.
Skype name: ohmydays4
MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nalt
Member Avatar
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
Sometimes the best thing for a region in decline is for a leader that was around in it's high-day to take back the leadership to re-instate a feeling of 'the old days'. I'm not saying we're anyway near there, but I wouldn't like a system that would prevent that from happening here forever.

I like OmD's idea, no more than two consecutive terms, and a delegate must wait two terms after the end of his second term to run again. (Although, as OmD said it that would apply to one-term delegates too... Not a major difference but if a delegate was only in office one term I wouldn't see why he/she shouldn't be allowed to run again in one term.)

Btw, I think when we address this we should do so as an amendment to the Concordat. Even though we aren't changing anything in the Concordat, we are making a substantial enough change that we should do it by adding it to the Concordat. (Similar to the 22nd US Amendment)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oh My Days
No Avatar
You got blood on my Suit.
Topid
Sep 2 2010, 06:01 PM
if a delegate was only in office one term I wouldn't see why he/she shouldn't be allowed to run again in one term.

I think that in a delegate's second term (and particularly if two delegates in a row serve two terms), the delegate comes to be all that a lot of people know about a given region. It also discourages new people to run for delegate, as they think that only someone from a given clique of people can become delegate.

There is also the security aspect that after a year of being delegate, someone could easily decide to keep hold of it forever. Establishing a new forum and banjecting any dissidents would be easy, particularly as a two-term delegate could easily find supporters.
Skype name: ohmydays4
MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Ehhhh....

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I think I might have overreacted. I don't think that was directed totally at me, and I was pretty shallow in thinking that. I am sorry for that. I guess I kind of let other things get the best of me.

Anywho, I like what I'm hearing. I do like OMD's proposition with Topid's clarification.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oh My Days
No Avatar
You got blood on my Suit.
Todd McCloud
Sep 2 2010, 06:17 PM
Ehhhh....

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I think I might have overreacted. I don't think that was directed totally at me, and I was pretty shallow in thinking that. I am sorry for that. I guess I kind of let other things get the best of me.

Anywho, I like what I'm hearing. I do like OMD's proposition with Topid's clarification.

I support a complete ban on consecutive terms, as I think that a delegate serving two consecutive terms has the same problems with creating a one-person region and discouraging new players. That's not an attack on you for serving two terms, I think you are probably the best feeder delegate I've ever seen, I just think it is inevitable.

If we could support it in terms of activity, I would want elections every 3 months.

*Looks at Barb having a nervous breakdown*

Sorry, Barb :P
Skype name: ohmydays4
MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Allegheny
Member Avatar
Partly Cloudy
Every three months? seriously? It's hard to find people who are actually willing to take that postion around here let alone do it every three months.
Posted Image

There was a hole here. It's gone now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kandarin
Member Avatar
Ferret princess
Moved to its own thread with approval from the Provost. There's a lot to respond to, so I'll get to things as I can. ^_^

Quote:
 
I am going to attempt to look at this point from an objective viewpoint, assuming you are not  referring directly to Todd here. In that case, this paragraph makes no logical sense. You are assuming that any Delegate who may, at some point in the future, serve two terms and want to run for a third will be a delegate who is acting on their own, like "a dictator or president". Is it not feasible, if not more than likely, that a particularly capable individual would be one who acts for the good of TEP? In fact, the only reason that a Delegate should be elected for a second term, never mind a third, is if they have done a good job in the eyes of the Region. I see no reason to prevent qualified, capable people from being democratically elected to a position.

Every Delegate, in every Region, is unique. This is due to the fact that every person is unique. No two leaders in the history of the world have acted in the same way as each other, and thus I believe that it is shallow to think that the amazing job DFD has done, our second Delegate to ever be elected, is "the best way to do it" and "a way of doing it that should continue". It may be a good model to keep in mind, but it is not the only way things should be done. If we try to curtail the way a Delegate behaves and tell them how they should act and what model to follow, our region will grow stale and slowly die. It is also showing a bias on your part to say "...compared to previous Delegacies has shown..." seeing as how Todd is the only other person up to this point to be democratically elected as Delegate in TEP.


Here I feel a clarification is owed - my frame of reference isn't just previous elected TEP delegates, but all previous TEP delegates and in fact all feeder delegates everywhere. And from what I've seen of all feeder delegates everywhere before, the 'norm' in feeders is the trend OMD pointed out - the perception that the Delegate is the region.

DFD's Delegacy has been a departure from that. It has been an approach that gives the Delegate an appreciable role while ultimately taking the spotlight off the Delegate and onto the roles of the rest of the region. And in that time we've had unparalleled growth as a region and a community. Todd's delegacy was fine as the conventional norms of feeder delegates go, but it still obeyed those norms. I absolutely do think DFD's way has been better for the region - and has shown what needs to be changed about those norms. To that end, I think that enshrining that more indirect approach in the way TEP does things would be a good thing.

Quote:
 
While I do think that Kandarin has a point, and while I do think that it's a good one, I think it is crazy to limit a person to two terms of delegacy and then they could never run anymore, ever again. We have to face the fact that NS isn't as lively and full of activity as it once was and we don't have enough resources to run things forever with different people in charge. Point is, before we know it, a time might come when the only persons that might actually be eligible to run are noobs, and all those people who are sensible enough have used up their TWO TERMS.


NS is declining and no doubt. How fast it will decline, how far it will decline and whether any of us will be here when it hits a breaking point could form the subject matter of an entire thread - but in any case it hasn't been declining here of late. I'm sure we can all agree that if we can't find one or two capable people per year, we have much bigger problems.

Quote:
 
I believe that we must not allow any individual to become the region, in the eyes of most NSers. To a typical player, Fudgetopia was TSP for a long time, Krulltopia is TP (although, you could argue that there is a certain truth in that tongue.gif) and increasingly, Southern Bellz is becoming TSP. I don't think that this is a good thing at all, and think it is inevitable in any delegate's second term, where far too many players won't have known a time before the given delegate of a region. This reinforces the idea that feeders are heavily cliqued and that new players can't run for the delegacy.

You might worry that TEP could then run out of candidates, but an often-changing delegate will encourage more candidates to come forward. Look how few people stood each time, this further discourages new candidates. Ideally, we should have 4 or 5 people standing each time, and there's nothing wrong with people standing without expecting to win. This can be a great learning curve for prospective future delegates, who would then be able to ask for advice from the people who didn't vote for them. New players also have a dramatically different perspective, and might bring forward some very good ideas in their campaigns, which they would otherwise be too shy to submit, or not know where to take them.

We should also aggressively advertise elections on the WFE and RMB (telegramming the whole region would be ideal, if we have enough people who can help), and a delegate who is standing for a second term has a disincentive to highlight this. I'm not knocking DFD, or accusing her of trying to hide the elections (I don't even know if she's standing), but I think that notice should be up for about a month, and much more explicitly than it is. A maximum of one consecutive term would also reduce the bragging rights that go with the position, as raiders and defenders know that they can't just use the position for status for very long. This will further encourage people to stand because they want to serve the region, not their own egos.

A year is not really a long time for a successful delegate to wait, and neither is it difficult to find three suitable candidates in 18 months. To argue that it is, would be to say that there is no-one suitable to be delegate, other than Todd or DFD. Both of them were first-time feeder delegates (I think?) and both are widely viewed as tremendously successful delegates (correctly, IMO). This won't cause TEP to run out of people to be delegate, but stagnation and cliqued government would do.

I'm opposed to limits on the number of total terms a delegate may serve, as I don't see why a good delegate who stays around shouldn't serve again, so long as new players are given a chance.


You have put the norm of feeder delegates much better than I did. :) That said, we need to take care not to go all the way the other way. I know that a lot of people run for the honor and status that comes with the position. This is good - the position should absolutely have honor and status that comes with it. Some other feeders have tried to fight the miscategorization of delegates by reducing them to a level that it's not worth running.

I think that a two-term gap would not hinder the honor value of the delegacy. That said, I feel that an outright ban on consecutive terms would. We don't want one person becoming *the* face of the region*, but allowing a delegate to continue acting in that regard for longer if they wanted would allow the position to retain its status - not to mention the value of having more Influence. As far as security concerns go, two restrictions don't provide more security than one and we only really need one.

Quote:
 
Ehhhh....

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I think I might have overreacted. I don't think that was directed totally at me, and I was pretty shallow in thinking that. I am sorry for that. I guess I kind of let other things get the best of me.

Anywho, I like what I'm hearing. I do like OMD's proposition with Topid's clarification.


I presume this covers the previous post, which is why I haven't replied to that one. I trust that TEPers can take frank criticism of their positions and actions without feeling attacked or categorizing me as an enemy. ^_^ If anyone does have concerns with my position, they are welcome to PM me.

*(On that note: I realize that my position on TEP delegacies doesn't seem compatible with my history in the RR. On that note I must add that what works for TEP and what works for TRR are very different, and that TRR's delegacy carries some unusual stipulations - some obvious, some not - such that I could count on one hand the number of NSers who would actually be happy in that position.)
"Torpored Caitiff Antediluvian"

Quote:
 
ClipSnap says:
Kandarin should just implode from the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
ClipSnap says:
I mean, no nation could ever sustain that many contradicting belief systems and still exist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Yeah, I got what you said, Kand. And I am starting to lean toward the consecutive terms themselves are a bad idea. We're a region of many, not a region of one. Plus... speaking from experience... serving more than two terms can make things stale, for both the delegate and the people.

One always wants to do the best one can when one is entrusted with a responsibility. I guess I got a little carried away with some of the criticism, mostly because well, you feel bad when you think you didn't do the best job that you could've done. Easier to listen to the negative than the positive, and sometimes it can build up. No excuse for it though. That's what happened here. If it happens again, be sure to find the biggest, wettest trout you can and wallop me over the head with it
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Quote:
 
I'm not knocking DFD, or accusing her of trying to hide the elections (I don't even know if she's standing), but I think that notice should be up for about a month, and much more explicitly than it is.


Concordat specifies the term every government official serves. "Old elections" threads specify the exact date of the election of every official. Citizens ratify Concordat and if they fail to read it or look into their government records, then their lack of knowledge is a lack of interest, not of available knowledge.

I take great exception to this characterization of our current Delegate. "If she's still standing?" I talk to DFD more days of the week than not. I have never made a request of our Delegate that has not responded to promptly.

TEP currently allows nations within the region to become citizens who may vote. I dare say I know of no UCR that allows non-WA nations to vote for delegate. I could be wrong. Find one and I'll stand corrected.

We have 4 Magisterium elections and 2 Delegate elections per year. Might I suggest that increasing the frequency of elections would inject governmental instability and election fatigue: voter apathy. Might I also suggest that you have a popular and active Delegate, then it is UNdemocratic to prohibit the citizens from choosing them to represent the popular will of the citizens until they retire.

If a "one month notification" of next election is required we will ALWAYS be in election season. The opportunities for voter fraud would require a re-write of Concordat. One that increasingly restricts citizen rights and naturalization. I don't support that in absence of a demonstrated need to do it.

Term limits are called elections. There is no evidence any player or group of players has any lock on any office in government. There is no Magister who served in the last Magisterium. It isn't broken, what problem are you trying to fix?

If you have any concern about the influence of your Delegate, be advised that the assumption of Delegacy immediately diminishes the influence of a Delegate within their region. The longer they serve, the more it grows. Preventing them from serving by vote for as long as the citizens choose them is guaranteeing a Delegate cannot grow in influence. If that's your goal, term limits will accomplish it: forever weak. If it isn't, term limits shoots the region in the foot.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Oh My Days
Sep 2 2010, 07:34 PM
Todd McCloud
Sep 2 2010, 06:17 PM
Ehhhh....

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I think I might have overreacted. I don't think that was directed totally at me, and I was pretty shallow in thinking that. I am sorry for that. I guess I kind of let other things get the best of me.

Anywho, I like what I'm hearing. I do like OMD's proposition with Topid's clarification.

I support a complete ban on consecutive terms, as I think that a delegate serving two consecutive terms has the same problems with creating a one-person region and discouraging new players. That's not an attack on you for serving two terms, I think you are probably the best feeder delegate I've ever seen, I just think it is inevitable.

If we could support it in terms of activity, I would want elections every 3 months.

*Looks at Barb having a nervous breakdown*

Sorry, Barb :P

I'd be against a three month term for the delegate, mostly because it may take a delegate a month or more to surpass the previous delegate's WA totals. There's not a whole lot a del could do in 2-3 months as compared to a longer term. Just a lot of planning, getting in the swing of things, and what not :mac:
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
North Harmoneia
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
Kandy, I think you missed this one.
Quote:
 
However, I am totally in favor of setting a limit on consecutive terms and making clear detail as to when one can run again after using up the alotted and permitted terms.

which puts what I said in a different context.

That said, I am in favor of OmD's suggestion as well. A ban on consecutive terms itself might actually be reasonable as well.

But then I too disagree with the three months thing for endorsement reasons. Besides, you'd barely have anything done in three months.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bai Lung
Member Avatar
Paradise City
If have a couple of questions regarding term limits for the Delegacy:

1. How many years is it for one term?
2. If the term limits is absolute, would it apply to those who served as the Delegate AFTER this term limit is impose or would it be applied retroactively?
Posted Image
"Freedom..."
The Free Republic of Bai Lung
Visit my official NSWiki page on Bai Lung

Quote:
 
"They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The Hal'vonnist people of Dannistaan, the ones who created this nation... I am talking about the Dannistrian Hal'vonnist people of the North as well as the East...Communism is racial! A racial minority seized control in Bai Lung and in all her satellite states such as Kelssek, Dovakhan and the Free Pacific States, and many other countries I could name."

-Kelly Minn'ow-Jones, former leader of the Dannistrian National Party
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Member Avatar
Cool like Snakes

A single term as delegate consists of six months.

And I am fairly certain it would be a "god-fathered" clause; the rule would be place into effect for everyone in the future and not past delegates.


^_^

Official Approval by Terasu

Posted Image


MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY

You can't ignore my girth.


Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe"

:lol:


;)

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bai Lung
Member Avatar
Paradise City
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Sep 13 2010, 12:29 AM
A single term as delegate consists of six months.

And I am fairly certain it would be a "god-fathered" clause; the rule would be place into effect for everyone in the future and not past delegates.


^_^

Thank you. I thought it would apply retroactively because technically speaking, that Delegate would be serving more than 2 terms even if the rule does not apply to that Delegate who served from year x to year y. This is why I support applying term limits retroactively.

I wished term limits existed in the UK political system (it doesn't). London mayor for instance can serve any amount of terms and I personally frown on the fact that Ken Livingston is trying run for mayor in 2012, effectively running for a third term. :P

EDIT: Lord Speaker is the only term limited position in the UK.
Posted Image
"Freedom..."
The Free Republic of Bai Lung
Visit my official NSWiki page on Bai Lung

Quote:
 
"They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The Hal'vonnist people of Dannistaan, the ones who created this nation... I am talking about the Dannistrian Hal'vonnist people of the North as well as the East...Communism is racial! A racial minority seized control in Bai Lung and in all her satellite states such as Kelssek, Dovakhan and the Free Pacific States, and many other countries I could name."

-Kelly Minn'ow-Jones, former leader of the Dannistrian National Party
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Member Avatar
Cool like Snakes

I have always been in favor of delegate term limits. This game too easily falls into the hands of the old and it is time we give that power back to new members by limiting the involvement of old members.

This game was fun to many of us when we first joined because we had to actively work and challenge ourselves to get into positions. But as we became the old seasoned members of this game that competitive edge began to be removed and people expected the "old members" to run regions. Older more experienced members became the power holders and new members barely had a chance if they wanted to hold a position, mostly because of intimidation to run against those "powerhouses" in this game.

I would like to see TEP become the forefront of welcoming new members into this game. I have worked very hard in my term to try to encourage new members to run for positions while giving positions to newer less known members over the older more established members. We have seen the success of many new leaders in our region as a result of trusting them and giving them a genuine opportunity to contribute and succeed.

There are several reasons why I support term limits and the main reason is that it forces change. By ensuring that no one person holds the position for too long, it forces other members to step up and take the reigns.

Additionally, as I discussed with other members in this region, a single delegate, that is to say a single person who acts as delegate, often has a different agenda and focus of their term as delegate. By that nature, it seems ludicrous to me to keep a single delegate for even an entire year yet alone longer because the goals of the region often change month to month. By keeping the same delegate we do not allow for much of an opportunity for expansion and progressive growth. By keeping the region set on the single path of a delegate, we limit our ability to move forward with the game.

For instance, Todd's term was set getting the region back onto its feet after the region's collapse under The Empire. He worked diligently on bringing in new members and trying to promote a positive welcoming atmosphere. The drawback was that he felt that he needed to take the reigns to get his goals accomplished and while we had many members, few people were actually doing anything in the region. My term was met with trying to take the reigns away from delegate and giving them to other people. I focused on trying to create a stronger community and restructuring the power. The drawbacks of that is we saw a lot of tension and drama that came with the changes of removing people from positions they did nothing with. We saw a great amount of fighting, anger, and hostility as a result of my goal to bring the power back and put it in the hands of people who wanted it and would use it to help the region rather then themselves. The next delegate then has to pick up my shortcomings and so on.

Limiting terms allows us as a region to change and pick up the slack where another delegate lacked. Now, most of you know that I have come to know a lot of you in RL and more personally over my time in NS. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I truly understand your concerns. With that said, I also understand your hesitations and I know that a lot of people here would be hesitant to run against their friends and hesitant to run against people who did not do a bad job as delegate. Intimidation and fear of disrespecting another person drives many in this region. In that aspect, I know that few people would want to run against a delegate like Todd or even myself because they respect us and care about us and would not want to create hostility. In fact, that is why Todd and I mutually agreed not to run this term. I respect everyone here, but this is a serious concern we need to address. And rather than trying to force each individual to overcome that, we have a better chance as a region by creating a system that autoremoves that dilemma. By limiting the amount of terms a delegate can run, we remove that system that allows for one person to remain delegate for years.

I understand that many believe it to be unfair to limit a delegate. Speaking as one, limit me all you like. If I care about TEP enough, I do not need to be delegate to show I care. I do not need to be a position of that magnitude to bring change into this region or continue to contribute to this region. I can operate just fine with or without the position. You will not hurt my feelings limiting the amount of terms I can run for. And if I was so ambitious to be delegate for the power of being delegate, I can go to any other feeder or my own region and be delegate to my heart's content. But I do not want that here. I want to see new members taking the reigns and I want TEP to be a forefront for change and progression. I want to see new faces and give a reasonable goal of attainment for new members. Call me selfish, but I have been in too many other feeders that did not allow for that and that is why I came here. Remove the ability for the new to contribute and there is nothing substantial that separates us from the other feeders. We might as well just be The Pacific.

But we are not TP, we are not TWP, or TNP, or TWP, we are THE EAST PACIFIC! HOORAH! And so long as I am here, I will keep fighting to assure we remain the East in all its unique glory.

(This is also why you should limit terms so you kick members that you dislike like me out on their asses when they go too far.)

:P


Also, there is an entire security issue why limiting delegacy is a good thing, but I will save that for another argument should this one fail. :lol:

^_^

Official Approval by Terasu

Posted Image


MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY

You can't ignore my girth.


Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe"

:lol:


;)

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bai Lung
Member Avatar
Paradise City
From Wikipedia:

Quote:
 
Term limits are found usually in presidential and semi-presidential systems as a method to curb the potential for dictatorships, where a leader effectively becomes "president for life".


I remember the Delegacy for the EP was run by egotistical person (Lady Phedre) who acted like a dictator. 1 Infinite Loop was ousted by this Lady Phedre who gained more endorsements than him! This happened about two years ago and boy! That was that one heck of a weird experience. She was eventually ousted with help of Slanted Black Stripe.

I take it that the election process would be exactly the same if the term limits weren't there. No blanket primaries were as many candidates are on the ballot and then the two who have the most votes would face each other in a run off?

EDIT: The blanket primary thing is a little too much. :td:
Posted Image
"Freedom..."
The Free Republic of Bai Lung
Visit my official NSWiki page on Bai Lung

Quote:
 
"They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The Hal'vonnist people of Dannistaan, the ones who created this nation... I am talking about the Dannistrian Hal'vonnist people of the North as well as the East...Communism is racial! A racial minority seized control in Bai Lung and in all her satellite states such as Kelssek, Dovakhan and the Free Pacific States, and many other countries I could name."

-Kelly Minn'ow-Jones, former leader of the Dannistrian National Party
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
I also vote in favor of a ban on consecutive term limits.
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Member Avatar
Cool like Snakes

I do not know what the Magisterium specifically intends to do with terms. It seems that they have a few options, setting a term limit such as one that says you may only serve four terms total as delegate, they may ban consecutive terms saying that you may only hold two consecutive terms as delegate, or they may make a combination and only allow perhaps two consecutive terms and three terms total.

To me it does not necessarily matter what specific rules they make but just that some sort of limited term is in place. Four terms does not sound like a lot to a delegate, but that is two years in this game. And when a RL month is several months in NS time and a year in RL time is ages in NS time.....it really makes a dramatic impact that can make or break a region.

I have seen regions broken who refused to accept the disparaging time differientations of this game. Who said, ah, two terms are not that important. Yes, yes, it is. Phedre only reigned for a very few months in NS time but during her time here, we saw very damaging results and lost many great members of our community.

If we want to stay on the top of other feeders, we need to really see that we do not get stuck in the traditional mentalities of other feeders and one of those mentalities is the acceptance of a permanant face of figurehead.

By being the only feeder that gives an opportunity for a new member to obtain delegacy, we will retain newer members much more effectively than other feeders.

Now, I realize that doing this allows for raiders to also come in, but rest assured that this was something I foresaw LONG before we began talks of limiting delegacy. My term helped establish some long lasting fail-safes that will help keep raiders from holding power here. So long we maintain our high levels of influence and activity, a bad delegate will be unable to actually seize control of our government. And we have many willing players who can jump to taking the reigns and control to throw out any inadequate delegate.

:lol:

Anyways, I rant.



Official Approval by Terasu

Posted Image


MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY

You can't ignore my girth.


Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe"

:lol:


;)

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bai Lung
Member Avatar
Paradise City
I'm having a tabula rasa moment here. I realised that Gnidrah maybe the one who was thrown out in the coup, not 1 Infinite Loop who resigned from the delegacy. :/
Posted Image
"Freedom..."
The Free Republic of Bai Lung
Visit my official NSWiki page on Bai Lung

Quote:
 
"They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The Hal'vonnist people of Dannistaan, the ones who created this nation... I am talking about the Dannistrian Hal'vonnist people of the North as well as the East...Communism is racial! A racial minority seized control in Bai Lung and in all her satellite states such as Kelssek, Dovakhan and the Free Pacific States, and many other countries I could name."

-Kelly Minn'ow-Jones, former leader of the Dannistrian National Party
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
North Harmoneia
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
^1 Infinite Loop's Delegacy was there for quite a long time as well, though. But from what I remember, it wasn't as inactive as Gnidrah's. Hmm.

Term limits are good. As long as a term does not consist of 3 months. As long as a delegate who's reached his or her term limit for now may run again, I say, at least 2 years after, which gives that past delegate 2-4 persons interval.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
North Harmoneia, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kangarawa
Member Avatar
Maker of Coffee
My :2c: :

As others have stated, past history has shown that the face of the delegate has often been seen as the face of the region, particularly in the feeders. I don't regard that as either intrinsically bad or intrinsically good. It just is. I like new faces though. We elect our delegates because we trust them. I'm in favour of limiting the number of consecutive terms to two. A year is a lifetime in NS but there's also a learning curve to be considered. In the event that we're not pleased with what's going on, there IS an opportunity to elect another after the first term. I can't speak to what went on during Phedre's reign ... I wasn't here save when TEP was first invaded by The Empire.

I'm not in favour of preventing someone from running again once they've had a break.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted Image
If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Why not just simply ban consecutive terms altogether, and that's it?

I served two terms, and I'll admit, things can get pretty stale even for the delegate after a while, if anything, at the end of the second consecutive term at least. Getting a new guy (or girl, lol) in office for each term is a good way to ensure things stay fresh in a region, and a good way to sort of change things up every six months. Six months is a good time to get in, do a few things, and put in some changes. A year isn't really needed to do that. This way we ensure a new delegate each term.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
North Harmoneia
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
^speaking also as a former feeder delegate, I must say that 6 months is enough to lay down and implement one's plans. That sounds good as well. probably better than what I first proposed, because what Todd is saying sounds like there's gonna be more action involved. :)
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kangarawa
Member Avatar
Maker of Coffee
There's a steep learning curve involved in taking on the delegacy even in a UFR if one is to do it well. The learning curve would be far, far steeper in a feeder. While a six month term may be sufficient for someone who has been an effective delegate in a UFR or a former feeder delegate, it may not be sufficient for someone who has not.

As DFD stated, we have fail-safes in place to prevent raiders from keeping control long should that ever again occur. With the Concordat in place along with those fail-safes, we can also replace a delegate who we don't feel is up to the job. It's still a matter of trusting ourselves to elect someone we feel can effectively represent both the region and us. The opportunity is there to replace someone after six months in a new election.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted Image
If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
North Harmoneia
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
^on the contrary, a first-time feeder delegate usually accomplishes more than a veteran does, because there is more enthusiasm and that feeling of excitement and eagerness. IMHO.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Infinite is a customized version of Simple ZB created by Protego of Outline & Zetaboards Theme Zone
Icons by Paomedia and hosted by imgur


© The East Pacific 2003-2018