Official Petition to Call a Constitutional Convention

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the wording here is definitely open to interpretation. It doesn't say a majority of citizens in a majority of regions have to call for a ConCon, only citizens in a majority of regions. Technically speaking, we have already had "citizens of a majority of the Regions" call for a ConCon.

I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this wording. If they don't think what we've currently done is sufficient, I would say the quickest option would be to have each region open a voting booth on the matter and give it an up or down vote.

"the citizens of a majority of the Regions" could mean we need all the citizens from three regions.

[Dr. Cynic]

X- Dr. Cynic

[Enderman]

Today is the day that we can say in one voice, that we will not go quietly into the night! We will make this new Fourth Atlasian Constitution! If this new Constitution will make Atlasia exciting, make it four legitimate regions, and completely user friendly, then I therefore sign this petition with three words to sum it all up: "LETS, DO THIS!"

(X Jack Enderman by the way... )

[PJ]

Bump

[DemPGH]

X DemPGH

I support this, and I think it would be good precursor to or barometer for a reset or reboot, depending upon how far we want to go with that. But at a minimum, this is needed. I hope that it would get people talking and interested in a new vision for Atlasia, ideally. And if not, it's pragmatic because we realize that we have a lot of issues and problems with the current constitution. 

[SWE]

X SomebodyWhoExists

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

x Alfred

[bore]

X bore

[Lumine]

X LumineVonReuental

[Franzl]

X Franzl

[Cranberry]

x TheCranberry

[Lumine]

I'm a little bit curious about what Tmthforu said back on September, given that the Constitution is quite open to interpretation on this matter. As he pointed out, back in September we technically had "citizens of a majority of the Regions" Even if some of the people who signed are no longer here (PJ, Kitteh, Mr. X, etc), we still have signatures from all regions, which probably means that President Duke could already ask the consent of the Senate for this Constitutional Convention.

[Flake]

x Flo

[Dr. Cynic]

This really should still be done.

[Napoleon]

X Napoleon

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Why is this a good idea?

[Adam Griffin]

(Updated) Signatures by Region:

Northeast - 10/20 (50%)
Pacific - 7/14 (50%)
Midwest - 6/15 (40%)
IDS - 3/14 (21%)
Mideast - 2/23 (9%)

[rpryor03]

x Rpryor03

[Dr. Cynic]

Why is this a good idea?

Simply put, we're stagnating. This game absolutely needs a fresh start if it's going to survive and this is a way to do it.

[sentinel]

 xSirNick

[Deus Naturae]

Why is this a good idea?

Simply put, we're stagnating. This game absolutely needs a fresh start if it's going to survive and this is a way to do it.

How is changing the constitution going to increase activity?

[Dr. Cynic]

Why is this a good idea?

Simply put, we're stagnating. This game absolutely needs a fresh start if it's going to survive and this is a way to do it.

How is changing the constitution going to increase activity?

We hardly do anything anymore. I am advocating not just a new constitution, but a new nation as a whole. Many of the debates in the Senate are nothing more than repealing old bills or worse, amending them to fit within our legalese. We need to have fresh debates and one way to get people into it again would be a ConCon where we can have the debate about starting over the proper way and do so. It gives us the opportunity to create a new nation in that, we can start fresh. Sometimes that's what games need. I've played Parliamentary sims that have a restart every so many months. Many others have a restart every year or two. This game is 10 years old. There are laws that go all the way back to the origins of the game that may or may not even be applicable today and you can't expect people to go back through a decade of simulated legislation to make things applicable. A ConCon, (and then a full restart, which I'll be advocating for) gives us that fresh start and means we won't HAVE to have the inane debates for quite some time.

[DemPGH]

I think a new Con-Con will give people an incentive to shape what has become a fairly stale game with stale proceedings into something new and hopefully more exciting.

Also, there is the fact that the current constitution has a number of inconsistencies and even contradictions as well as twenty-five or so amendments, some of which I guess have not been entered.

I think it's time for a new concept of what the game should be, and we need not distrust each other in shaping it! Surely conservatives will agree that things are pretty dry.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A new constitution doesn't guarrantee more activity on its own. The efficiency gains or functional improvements can help get more people interested, but its a marginal effect. We are grateful to have the Purple State/Marokai Constitution as opposed to what came before it, and in that they were successful. In terms of a significant sea change in activity though, they were less successful because it is beyond the ability of a reform or change to motivate people to participate. You have to contend with the cycles of real life politics bringing people in and cycling them out, amongst other variables that cannot be controlled.

The switching out of systems, is a tradeoff as well. Going to a Parliamentary system will enthuse some but some others will be less interested.

[Oakvale]

I oppose this idea and fully agree with Yankee's above post. Con Cons in the past haven't been especially interesting. Alas.