|
Title: Game Moderator Post by: Platypus on March 12, 2004, 05:24:19 PM This is a position we *need*. We need a person to run elections, keep players to the rules, serve as an independent judge on the supreme court, and create events for the senators to respond to.
Can you imagine if we just have 10 senators brawling in the senate with nothing to do and noone to keep them intact? Do you want the RNC, DNC and PNC to run the elections?!? We need someone to do this, and it appears Dave isn't going to do it, because he is a very busy man. So, post here if you have any opinions on thwe matter, and if you think you'd be a good GM. I would like to apply for the position, i've seen how it worked, but I would be happy as long as whoever got it was smart, concise, knowledgable about the world, not just the US, and can be non-partisan in their judgements, especially on the court. Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: dunn on March 12, 2004, 05:30:23 PM This is a position we *need*. We need a person to run elections, keep players to the rules, serve as an independent judge on the supreme court, and create events for the senators to respond to. Can you imagine if we just have 10 senators brawling in the senate with nothing to do and noone to keep them intact? Do you want the RNC, DNC and PNC to run the elections?!? We need someone to do this, and it appears Dave isn't going to do it, because he is a very busy man. So, post here if you have any opinions on thwe matter, and if you think you'd be a good GM. I would like to apply for the position, i've seen how it worked, but I would be happy as long as whoever got it was smart, concise, knowledgable about the world, not just the US, and can be non-partisan in their judgements, especially on the court. The progressive party will apply one of it's members for the position. Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Platypus on March 12, 2004, 05:31:19 PM Thank you for your interest, I presume this means the PP supports me plan for a Game Moderator?
Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: MAS117 on March 12, 2004, 05:32:21 PM im not sure if this is a position we need? let me just get this straight, you want this person to be on the supreme court?
Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: dunn on March 12, 2004, 05:35:38 PM Thank you for your interest, I presume this means the PP supports me plan for a Game Moderator? In fact in our version of the constitution that is the SC chief justice main role Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Inmate Trump on March 12, 2004, 05:38:18 PM That sounds like a good idea actually...
Not sure I'd want to apply for the position, but it might be good if someone did.... Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Platypus on March 12, 2004, 05:40:10 PM Please do not make the actual nominations a party issue; anyone of any party should apply if they think they have it in them.
MAS-Yes; as they would be independent. I will politely ask Dave to choose the final GM form the list of nominees, so they aren't partisan (but they can be a member of any party). dunn-Thanks for your support :) Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: dunn on March 12, 2004, 05:41:59 PM Please do not make the actual nominations a party issue; anyone of any party should apply if they think they have it in them. MAS-Yes; as they would be independent. I will politely ask Dave to choose the final GM form the list of nominees, so they aren't partisan (but they can be a member of any party). dunn-Thanks for your support :) :) Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Gustaf on March 12, 2004, 05:49:49 PM IF there is an unbiased, fair, responsible, high-minded, noble individual out there who's up to the task, then by all means... :)
Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Nation on March 12, 2004, 05:53:50 PM Yeah, good luck finding one here ;)
Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Platypus on March 12, 2004, 05:54:36 PM at the moment, they can be opinionated, etc., they just have to be non-partisan and unpinionated when they are appointed. kinda like the speaker.
I believe we could all be independent, but I also think it is up to Dave to choose. But feel more then free to nominate and comment on other nominees ;) Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Demrepdan on March 12, 2004, 07:02:33 PM Perhaps the Game Moderator should be given the title of SPEAKER......it would be more fun that way....instead of having to refer to him as ...."The Game Moderator" all the time......
Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Emsworth on March 12, 2004, 08:38:54 PM Perhaps the Game Moderator should be given the title of SPEAKER......it would be more fun that way....instead of having to refer to him as ...."The Game Moderator" all the time...... Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: 12th Doctor on March 12, 2004, 08:44:05 PM This is a position we *need*. We need a person to run elections, keep players to the rules, serve as an independent judge on the supreme court, and create events for the senators to respond to. Can you imagine if we just have 10 senators brawling in the senate with nothing to do and noone to keep them intact? Do you want the RNC, DNC and PNC to run the elections?!? We need someone to do this, and it appears Dave isn't going to do it, because he is a very busy man. So, post here if you have any opinions on thwe matter, and if you think you'd be a good GM. I would like to apply for the position, i've seen how it worked, but I would be happy as long as whoever got it was smart, concise, knowledgable about the world, not just the US, and can be non-partisan in their judgements, especially on the court. Gustaf Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Inmate Trump on March 13, 2004, 12:39:12 AM I could totally see Gustaf doing this. He's one of the only people I'd feel would do the GM job right, without bias one way or the other. I know I couldn't do it....... Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 02:04:50 AM Perhaps the Game Moderator should be given the title of SPEAKER......it would be more fun that way....instead of having to refer to him as ...."The Game Moderator" all the time...... That was in our constitution draft Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: minionofmidas on March 13, 2004, 02:12:56 AM This issue has already been settled, by unanimous vote. This is the task of the Supreme Court.
Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Demrepdan on March 13, 2004, 03:00:33 AM Perhaps the Game Moderator should be given the title of SPEAKER......it would be more fun that way....instead of having to refer to him as ...."The Game Moderator" all the time...... Chief Justice is the Chief Justice.....his power shouldn't stretch any farther than the Supreme Court....and he shouldn't be the moderator...... Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 12:53:51 PM Perhaps the Game Moderator should be given the title of SPEAKER......it would be more fun that way....instead of having to refer to him as ...."The Game Moderator" all the time...... Chief Justice is the Chief Justice.....his power shouldn't stretch any farther than the Supreme Court....and he shouldn't be the moderator...... and what he does ? this gives him no just title but a real job Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Demrepdan on March 13, 2004, 01:52:33 PM Perhaps the Game Moderator should be given the title of SPEAKER......it would be more fun that way....instead of having to refer to him as ...."The Game Moderator" all the time...... Chief Justice is the Chief Justice.....his power shouldn't stretch any farther than the Supreme Court....and he shouldn't be the moderator...... and what he does ? this gives him no just title but a real job I thought the idea of the Moderator was the handle elections.....and make sure everything is done fairly.....not to interpret the law.....as is the job of the Chief Justice.... Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 04:18:15 PM Perhaps the Game Moderator should be given the title of SPEAKER......it would be more fun that way....instead of having to refer to him as ...."The Game Moderator" all the time...... Chief Justice is the Chief Justice.....his power shouldn't stretch any farther than the Supreme Court....and he shouldn't be the moderator...... and what he does ? this gives him no just title but a real job I thought the idea of the Moderator was the handle elections.....and make sure everything is done fairly.....not to interpret the law.....as is the job of the Chief Justice.... make sense but we gone have too many positions Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Platypus on March 13, 2004, 06:53:57 PM What we need is a gm that runselections, events, and is the final say on the rules. Whilst this doesn't mean that he has to be on the supreme court, if we have a three member court with a democrat, republican and the GM it basically means the same thing; they would always have the final say.
Also, our GM would be a permanent position and whoever took it on would not have any political say. We don't necessarily need someone who is neutral at the moment, we just need someone who is prepared to work in neutrality, in the way the speaker does. So, if your reading this Dave, please tell us who you would think would make a good GM. Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: dunn on March 15, 2004, 10:11:56 AM What we need is a gm that runselections, events, and is the final say on the rules. Whilst this doesn't mean that he has to be on the supreme court, if we have a three member court with a democrat, republican and the GM it basically means the same thing; they would always have the final say. Also, our GM would be a permanent position and whoever took it on would not have any political say. We don't necessarily need someone who is neutral at the moment, we just need someone who is prepared to work in neutrality, in the way the speaker does. So, if your reading this Dave, please tell us who you would think would make a good GM. God is not responding.... Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: Gustaf on March 15, 2004, 10:26:18 AM What we need is a gm that runselections, events, and is the final say on the rules. Whilst this doesn't mean that he has to be on the supreme court, if we have a three member court with a democrat, republican and the GM it basically means the same thing; they would always have the final say. Also, our GM would be a permanent position and whoever took it on would not have any political say. We don't necessarily need someone who is neutral at the moment, we just need someone who is prepared to work in neutrality, in the way the speaker does. So, if your reading this Dave, please tell us who you would think would make a good GM. God is not responding.... Your prayers haven't been heard... ;) Just for clarification: ALL of the positions we are now throwing around are mutually exclusive, right? So, my accpeting the poesition of SecState means that I can no longer be a senator of MN (a position I would've lost in redistribution) or respond to the 'Draft Gustaf' movement for GM... ;) Or are there any positions that can be combined, and if so which? We might run out of active people unless we watch out... Title: Re:Game Moderator Post by: dunn on March 15, 2004, 10:55:30 AM What we need is a gm that runselections, events, and is the final say on the rules. Whilst this doesn't mean that he has to be on the supreme court, if we have a three member court with a democrat, republican and the GM it basically means the same thing; they would always have the final say. Also, our GM would be a permanent position and whoever took it on would not have any political say. We don't necessarily need someone who is neutral at the moment, we just need someone who is prepared to work in neutrality, in the way the speaker does. So, if your reading this Dave, please tell us who you would think would make a good GM. God is not responding.... Your prayers haven't been heard... ;) Just for clarification: ALL of the positions we are now throwing around are mutually exclusive, right? So, my accpeting the poesition of SecState means that I can no longer be a senator of MN (a position I would've lost in redistribution) or respond to the 'Draft Gustaf' movement for GM... ;) Or are there any positions that can be combined, and if so which? We might run out of active people unless we watch out... i think you can't have two tofether and it's one reason we should have small goverment (no governers, small cabinet etc.) |