The (eCanadian) Bill
MaxMaher
"Abolish the Supreme Court. No more forum ban. Keep the power of the speaker to moderate and keep decorum. Finally let the congressmen the capacity to ban a congressman from the congress for the reminder of his term if the guys is a threat to national security. Let the forum admins deal with it if the Speaker or Congress clearly abuse of their power.
Afterall, ingame is now where all things happens."
This is what I had answer yesterday in Acacia's shout, when he asks how we could fix the current crisis. This is what I propose now in the constitutional amendment made here.
Preamble
The people agree that the government and role-play institutions of eCanada are bound by the following terms for the purpose of ensuring fair, enjoyable game-play and role-play for all citizens of eCanada. This Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes precedence over all other laws within eRepublik or eCanada.
Section I: Rights of Citizens
I.1) All citizens shall have the right to participate in all aspects of game-play as governed by game mechanics, forum masking or irc permissions unless specifically prohibited by law.
I.3) No citizen or group has the right to remove government assets without the consent of a two-thirds majority of congress.
Any crime which has been publicized in any government, political party or citizen's ingame newspaper article prior to the passing of this amendment into law, shall be afforded the same 60 days, beginning with the date this amendment passes into law.
Section II: Rights and Freedoms of Congress
II.1) The Congress of eCanada consists of the Congress elected in-game each month by the citizens of eCanada. The Congress of eCanada has the freedom to:
a) put forward and debate any proposal as governed by the in-game rules of eRepublik or affects the forum or irc community
b) request information relevant to any proposal from any government or role-play organization
c) vote on any proposal approved by the Speaker of Congress. Any unauthorized vote shall be voted down.
d) discuss and approve any Presidential order with a majority of 51% of congress or overturn any Presidential veto with the approval of 65% of Congress
e) elect from within their ranks a Congressional Minister to oversee any portfolio not appointed by the Country President.
d) remove the access of a congressman to the Congress section by a two-thirds majority of congress for the reminder of the current term.
II.2) The congress of eCanada has the freedom to select a Speaker of the House from within their ranks each month. Congress has the freedom to:
a) nominate or second as Speaker one (1) individual who is not a Cabinet Minister or Party President. Each nominee must receive both a nomination and second.
b) elect a Speaker over a period of 48 hours, no later than the 29th of the month.
c) request the Party President with the most congressional seats appoint a Speaker should the election process fail to choose a Speaker.
d) request the President of eCanada break any tie in the election as Speaker
II.3) The Speaker of the House has the right to:
a) moderate all discussions in Open and Closed Door Congress, create voting polls and count and report the results of votes
b) edit and delete posts within the Congress section of the forum
c) declare the President absent and institute an impeachment after a 72 hour absence as defined by the last visit time on the forum if advance notice has not been given
d) choose a deputy speaker who is a member of Congress, but who is not a Cabinet Minister or Party President to aid the Speaker in his duties.
Section III: Rights and Freedoms of the Executive
III.1) The President of Canada is the head of the government as chosen in-game each month by the citizens of eCanada. The President has the Right to:
a) control and delegate access to individuals to control and access government assets
b) introduce any motion
c) veto any motion passed by congress that falls outside in-game mechanics. The Speaker of the House must be informed of any Veto.
d) create and Remove Cabinet Ministries and to appoint eCanadian citizens to these posts
e) deny a Cabinet position to any individual who has not been a resident of eCanada for at least two weeks prior to the appointment or who leaves the country without written permission from the President
IV.1) The Supreme Court of Canada is the official Judiciary of eCanada and holds sole decision making powers in court cases relating to the laws of eCanada, actions of the government and disputes between citizens. The Supreme Court of eCanada has the right to:
a) be comprised of between three to five Court Justices with no more than two members from any political party or receiving funding from the same Military Unit. Members may not be congressmen, cabinet members, party presidents or the President.
b) have a Chief Justice with the power to moderate all discussions within the Supreme Court, determine the relevance and admissibility of evidence, witnesses and testimony in all Supreme Court proceedings, but whose vote in all other decisions holds no more power than the other Court Justices.
c) have candidates for Court Justice and Chief Justice proposed by the President and selected by a two thirds majority of votes cast in congress.
Section V: Addendums
Addendum 1) Changes to this Charter of Rights and Freedoms may be proposed on the eCanada forums by any individual masked as an eCanadian citizen. If after three days, the Speaker of the House believe that public opinion accepts the changes, congress shall vote on the proposed amendments with an affirmative vote of 65% resulting in ratification.
Addendum 2) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms replaces the former “Constitution of eCanada”. Procedural conventions from the former Constitution may be carried forward until such time as legislation is ratified, however they will not be considered law. This includes, but is not limited to, the construction of the Supreme Court and the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch over government organizations.
Addendum 3) Forum admins act as the final appeal level for all matters that concerns any government members who abuse of his moderation privilege on the forum.
I'm truly sorry for Freakenstien, Nogin the nog, my former Justice colleague, and all those who are supporters of the current justice system in eCanada. Today, I resign from my Chief Justice office.
I unfortunately do not believe in the light of the current events that our justice system serves any good. It's used to be the case when the game was more forum based like in the v1, but it's no longer stand.
The community is now struggling, in the verge of a civil war, over a single forum access. It's totally absurd. The Justice system should be used fix the problems that the community faces. Today, it is used by some that still fell resentful for a crime someone did more than a year ago (an eternity in eRepublik). There is a disconnection between our forum roleplay and our ingame roleplay that we have for to long been ignoring.
It's time to fix it.
Stop being resentful and carry on.
Max Maher,
Former Chief Justice (and a couple more things
😁
Comments
This is my proposal to solve the current crisis in eCanada. I agree that it might not be perfect, might not solve everything and might create others problems. I am confident that they will however be less problematic that the one we been facing for a couple of months.
I think it's a great step forward.
I concur.
Sadly, it has come to this point. The SC is a great concept with an important role, yet it has lacked stability and wider support (it takes more than just active Justices to make it work efficiently). It may be best to streamline the process, remove another complicating layer of govt, and deal with the loss of counter-measures to protect the rights of eCanadians and balance off the power of the Executive and Legislative, and forum admins. I'm not aware if it was accomplishing those goals as of late and forum admins should be capable of handling disputes, even if there may be a conflict of interest at times.
Another V1 dinosaur (as majestic as it was) rides off into the sunset...or is it the tarpits. Its energy may better be used elsewhere to fuel the forum.
Forum admins have no democratic power, especially in terms of "National Security"
I'd rather have the forum admins deal with users who post with vulgarity and against decorum and such things as spam, vs their judgement on issues as "National Security"
National Security are issues for the Congress, and should he choose to do so, The CP by use of Executive Order - under no circumstances should that be over-ridden by a forum admin with a potential conflict of interest
I concur Max...I think I will go ahead with your plan!
well done!
Yeah.. Because the people in the SC trying to ensure due process in dealing with anti-team actions were the problem.
Forum admins manage the forums. I'm perfectly happy if they oversee whatever happens there.
It would make perfect sense. I mean..that was the argument about the SC and the forum admins...the SC was redundant becuase the admins could handle most of the work...I guess we divided it into 'role play' vs 'terms of service' management. Yet, in my opinion, it's lawless in there so why not give all the power to the forum admins to manage accounts.
I mean THAT WOULD follow the forum mechanics. It's silly relying on role play to govern the forum.
Full circle it will come.
I foresee someone losing their forum mask later on despite whatever pardon was granted. Wild West here we come.
@Rolo, good suggestion. I think a great constitution require a good leverage of power. I think having the CP issuing a Executive Order with the simple majority of congress, like any EO require, to override a decision of an admin in a conflict for a decision would be a good counter-power. Thought, usually the admin team make a important decision together.
@ Rigour6, I try several time to recruit new Justices. I publish an article and asks Kronos Q to seek for new Justice. the only one who answers and could be Justice was Nogin. Rigour, you could have been Justice if you wanted, you could have campaign for CP and on vetoing any upcoming pardon approve by the congress. You didn't. You decided to go oversea and, by doing so, exclude yourself for participating to any political decision in eCanada. That's why I find it kind of silly your current crusade against those who decided to stay.
@ Plugson, Alexander and Acacia, Thanks for your support!
😁Rolo instigates the destruction of the nation and his "suggestions" are held in regard.😁
As I said before, the country is ungovernable because it is completely and utterly corrupted.
So long SC...
So want do you suggest Ralph? We are still waiting for any concrete proposal from you?
Ban Rolo once again. Oh, that will certainly helps. We will still be going to this political instability that we had prior to the pardon.
As far as I know all former criminal in eCanada has been rehabilitated. Tem, Pimpdollaz, SAWC, Muglack and all the others. I don't know how it could be different with Rolo. Rolo and Wally has show recently sign of good faith in CDC...
I'm not defending Rolo. I don't stand for Rolo. I never will. I'm just trying to improve things in eCanada. This is a suggestion. I think that I have identify part of the problem. It will not fix everything, but we have to start somewhere.
Max, you'e right. And I don't have the energy to explain the value of having a non-elected disputes arbiter if y'all can't see it.
Burn it all down, baby - burn it all down.
@ Max:
You still see yourselves as being subject to the whims of a criminal. You fear the political instability that comes from not submitting. The future, as it goes from here, gives someone who stole from community and antagonized them into forgiving this, a rightful place back in it. Unacceptable.
The cases other than Rolo's are night and day different, they made amends. The great issue I have is the country and so many having their destiny shaped by someone this way.
I won't and believe many more need to be shown they don't have to.
Sadly, that is my only solution.
Really, if Rolo had any regard for those around him and his country, he would do the honorable thing and leave.
I like your proposal and I also like Rolo's contribution to this idea. The balance between both ideas should be considered.
And the raging inferno claims another eCanadian treasure, or is it relic?
As soon as Congress gets to manage perceived security threats or un-friendlies of the state, expect to see the likes of this occur again:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/congress-revokes-dean22-s-canadian-citizenship--734711/1/20
All it takes is one charismatic, persuasive, and (in these days) lucrative Congressman to sway people's vote. It won't be impartial but it will be expedient. A small price to pay (I suppose) as compared to having a well-conceived concept like the SC but can't get the right support to sustain it.
Full circle.
it has already starte😛
http://ecanada.cc/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16222
"Rolo and Wally has show recently sign of good faith in CDC..."
gee... calling "retarded" anyone who disagrees with them ...is this a sign of good faith?? Insulting everyone who have different opinions, maybe? omg, I will say like others "what is wrong with you, people?"
@Plugson: As a former SC justice, I think you have hit the nail on the head.
A team is going to have disputes. There are various ways of resolving them. Open warfare is of course one way, so is bullying, so is social pressure, etc. It was never well understood that the purpose of the court was to provide due process to the defendant, by replacing hearsay and groupthink with an open and transparent process, so everyone could read the evidence and then people doing their best to be objective would "pass sentence" by which I mean they would lay out a path for the wayward team member to be reconciled to the team and say "hey, I should not be subject to social sanction because my debt has been paid in full."
The reason support for the Court was eroded was that a group of players, led by one in particular, had ZERO desire to be reconciled to the community. They therefore tried to shift the focus to the legitimacy/artificiality/roleplay of the court. The fact is you could pick ANY system of dispute resolution - a Council of Elders, a broader referendum, Congressional vote - and their interest and support in it would be ENTIRELY dependent on their ability to manipulate and control that process to exonerate their activity. They aren't the slightest bit interested in whether such a decision would be objective or fair because they have no loyalty or interest in the team - in fact they are occasionally quite open in stating that "there is no team". That's the way they wish to play, and they also want to prevent others who might wish to play as a team from doing so.
In this way, the entire debate about the SC has for the most part always been a snipe hunt. Go ahead and abolish it - you will have done nothing except burned another symbol of team co-operation on the pyre of selfishness. Whatever you imagine might succeed it will face a similar critique.
"Finally let the congressmen the capacity to ban a congressman from the congress for the reminder of his term if the guys is a threat to national security. Let the forum admins deal with it if the Speaker or Congress clearly abuse of their power."
What if someone has been wronged who is not a Congressman?
The judicial system was there to protect everyone
Cant support something when there isnt a viable option presented first, and handing complete power to forum admins is not a viable option, they are there to mask and police vulgarity and the like.
Crisfire, those responsibilities by the forum admins can be broadened. Their current role is not written in stone so why can't they form a committee to take over the old role of the SC. They'd have to manage it in a different way, of course.
sure but can they remain impartial or will people see them as impartial
forming a committee sounds like what we have now
but my point is id rather see something in place, or at least proposed, that makes sense before we take something away
"sure but can they remain impartial or will people see them as impartial"
No, people won't.
Same complaints about the SC, at times.
Congress will be less impartial than either.
Take the lesser of the losses.
Le temps de tout retirer cela! Après tout, le président vient de réduire à la blague ce système désuet. Thans President!
Scrap it!