Official runoff election for President [W:100]

[American]

I'm going to use the poll to cast my vote.

Who's going to moderate the Constitutional Convention, you know keeping everyone in line ?
We still need a Sergeant at Arms.

With a big gun. :mrgreen:

 

[vasuderatorrent]

I'm still not voting for you. I'll still abstain.

That's ok. Are you going to vote in the Presidential run off election?

 

[PirateMk1]

Good point.

We need at least one Mod to take that role since they have the power to enforce the rules. Which brings up another point - we need rules, specific to this that are in addition to the normal forum rules.

We should have a thread to suggest rules for the debate that are in addition to the existing forum rules, if others feel they are potentially required.

I'm going to use the poll to cast my vote.

Who's going to moderate the Constitutional Convention, you know keeping everyone in line ?
We still need a Sergeant at Arms.

I concur.

When the Convention officially conviens the first order of business should be to either appoint or elect a Sergeant of Arms. The Sergeant of Arms must have the power of a DP moderator. Than means someone from the DP Mod Squad or a Brevet Mod (temporary mod) who has the power of a DP mod. I don't think a brevet mod would pass the DP staff. You never know.

Right now from just taking a quick look at the list of the convention delegates, Your Star is the only one who can carry out the duties of Sergeant at Arms.

There's also kal'stang, RedAkston, and American, but that's still a rather short list of options. I suggest we elect a temporary moderator who will only have authority in threads relevant to the DP constitution. Just my suggestions for people (preexisting moderators preincluded) to do the job, based on what I've seen out of them on DP so far and who aren't already elected for something:

roguenuke
TheDemSocialist
Telekat
Gaius 46
Superfly
NIMBY
joG

Just a few people I think would put partisanship aside for this. My apologies if I overlooked anyone.

Just out of curiosity gentlemen why do you think that the convention president couldn't do that job with the backing of the moderators of the forum? Your Star, Kal'Stang, RedAkston and American are already participating in the thread, as such the President would be able to utilize their services as necessary.

Post 93 in this thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...tics-constitutional-convention-w-183-a-3.html describes the essential duties of the president and the secretary.

We are going to need a Secretary/Recorder to tally and keep track of all official votes and record final voted sections of our constitutional document.

We are also going to need a President of the Convention/Moderator to moderate the discussions and to call for official votes.

I would think that a Sargent at Arms would be redundant in this particular case seeing as that moderation is part of the presidents duties, along with the regular moderators overseeing the forum. Perhaps I am overlooking something, and as such, perhaps you gentlemen could enlighten me as to what that may be.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Pretty soon we will look like IBM, everyone is a Vice President of something... all the way down to the Vice President of Toilet Maintenance.

 

[APACHERAT]

Just out of curiosity gentlemen why do you think that the convention president couldn't do that job with the backing of the moderators of the forum? Your Star, Kal'Stang, RedAkston and American are already participating in the thread, as such the President would be able to utilize their services as necessary.

Post 93 in this thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...tics-constitutional-convention-w-183-a-3.html describes the essential duties of the president and the secretary.

We are going to need a Secretary/Recorder to tally and keep track of all official votes and record final voted sections of our constitutional document.

We are also going to need a President of the Convention/Moderator to moderate the discussions and to call for official votes.

I would think that a Sargent at Arms would be redundant in this particular case seeing as that moderation is part of the presidents duties, along with the regular moderators overseeing the forum. Perhaps I am overlooking something, and as such, perhaps you gentlemen could enlighten me as to what that may be.

A constitutional Convention without a Sergeant of Arms is like a suit without buttons.

 

[PirateMk1]

A constitutional Convention without a Sergeant of Arms is like a suit without buttons.

Maybe. I just don't see a point to a Sergeant at Arms, for this convention, especially given the proposed duties.

 

[APACHERAT]

Maybe. I just don't see a point to a Sergeant at Arms, for this convention, especially given the proposed duties.

Does that mean that Luftwaffee isn't going to be the lattrine orderly ?

 

[APACHERAT]

Maybe. I just don't see a point to a Sergeant at Arms, for this convention, especially given the proposed duties.

Put it up to vote if we need a Sergeant at Arms.

Seems to me the Secretary will be overloaded with his responsibilities.

I figure the President can fire the Sergeant at Arms ass any time if he feels like it. Or the Sergeant at Arms can be impeached if he or she allows their prejudices interfere with their duties of moderation.

Hopefully there will be no need of moderation.

But I've seen some threads flushed below for no reason at all.

 

[Superfly]

B - I vote for Sangha (and I already voted in the poll).

 

[sookster]

B - I vote for Sangha

 

[Lovebug]

Just out of curiosity gentlemen why do you think that the convention president couldn't do that job with the backing of the moderators of the forum? Your Star, Kal'Stang, RedAkston and American are already participating in the thread, as such the President would be able to utilize their services as necessary.

Post 93 in this thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...tics-constitutional-convention-w-183-a-3.html describes the essential duties of the president and the secretary.

We are going to need a Secretary/Recorder to tally and keep track of all official votes and record final voted sections of our constitutional document.

We are also going to need a President of the Convention/Moderator to moderate the discussions and to call for official votes.

I would think that a Sargent at Arms would be redundant in this particular case seeing as that moderation is part of the presidents duties, along with the regular moderators overseeing the forum. Perhaps I am overlooking something, and as such, perhaps you gentlemen could enlighten me as to what that may be.

All rules must be observed and violations may be reported by all members of the convention, right?
If convention participants start trolling or start posting crap, let the Prez give them a warning. If that isn't enough, remove them from the list of official convention members, notify and let the mods thread ban them and do with them whatever it is that they do.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'm sorry ladies and gents, but we are making a big mistake here getting all authoritarian with others in the convention.

The point of this as I understood it was an exercise to formulate a Constitution in today's terms. That will get derailed with all of these positions of authority designed to guide the process in a manner they see fit over the will of the participants in the convention. Someone at the center to call order and ensure progress makes sense, someone to be responsible for all the notations and motions made also makes sense. But, someone to act as if we need a police officer makes no sense.

If authoritarian control over the process is the goal, then the authority might as well design this Constitution in terms you want. Why bother with a convention if the rest of us as participants are already deemed a problem worthy of a Sergeant at Arms to control us all?

If that is the goal, count me out.

 

[Kobie]

I'm out. Please remove me from further discussions.

 

[tres borrachos]

I'm out. Please remove me from further discussions.

I am as well.

 

[tres borrachos]

Maybe. I just don't see a point to a Sergeant at Arms, for this convention, especially given the proposed duties.

Ooops should have posted to you and not just respond to Kobie's post.

This was a fun idea but I'm going to have to decline participation at this point. I'm glad you suggested it though and I wish you a lot of luck! Please remove me from the Convention.

 

[Superfly]

Same. I'm finished with this.

Sheesh, the internets are so serious. :roll:

 

[American]

I'm out. Please remove me from further discussions.

Hell no, misery loves company. :lol:

 

[Brochacholomigo]

I'm sorry ladies and gents, but we are making a big mistake here getting all authoritarian with others in the convention.

The point of this as I understood it was an exercise to formulate a Constitution in today's terms. That will get derailed with all of these positions of authority designed to guide the process in a manner they see fit over the will of the participants in the convention. Someone at the center to call order and ensure progress makes sense, someone to be responsible for all the notations and motions made also makes sense. But, someone to act as if we need a police officer makes no sense.

If authoritarian control over the process is the goal, then the authority might as well design this Constitution in terms you want. Why bother with a convention if the rest of us as participants are already deemed a problem worthy of a Sergeant at Arms to control us all?

If that is the goal, count me out.

I'm out. Please remove me from further discussions.

I am as well.

Same. I'm finished with this.

Sheesh, the internets are so serious. :roll:

After thinking about it, a sergeant at arms is pretty redundant. Will you guys please stay? Constitutional conventions are best done with as many diverse personalities as possible. Much like World Wars, or an orgy.

 

[tres borrachos]

After thinking about it, a sergeant at arms is pretty redundant. Will you guys please stay? Constitutional conventions are best done with as many diverse personalities as possible. Much like World Wars, or an orgy.

No thanks. But I wish you all well and hope it's a successful experiment.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

No thanks. But I wish you all well and hope it's a successful experiment.

Also, I saw your post in the ********. Thanks. I hadn't realized I was part of the problem, all the while I was trying to talk people back into participating.

By the way, if it's no real bother to you, I've noticed that people have been a little stingy with their likes lately, and I'd really appreciate your donations. I'm getting dangerously close to the 50% mark, you know.

 

[tres borrachos]

Also, I saw your post in the ********. Thanks. I hadn't realized I was part of the problem, all the while I was trying to talk people back into participating.

Not going into it up here but you weren't the only one.

It's just better all around if I don't participate at this time.

 

[tres borrachos]

Also, I saw your post in the ********. Thanks. I hadn't realized I was part of the problem, all the while I was trying to talk people back into participating.

By the way, if it's no real bother to you, I've noticed that people have been a little stingy with their likes lately, and I'd really appreciate your donations. I'm getting dangerously close to the 50% mark, you know.

I just gave you a like.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just my two cents worth, but I think in a message board environment, this whole thing needs to be kept as simple, untechnical, easy to understand, and easy to remember as possible. Otherwise there is just too much probability that most of the discussions will be on procedure than will be on debating the actual issues.

Make this harder than it has to be, and you're likely to have only a few legal eagles actually participating and that will defeat the purpose of the whole thing.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Make this harder than it has to be, and you're likely to have only a few legal eagles actually participating and that will defeat the purpose of the whole thing.

The purpose is to write a new constitution. If one person writes a new constitution by themselves then the purpose was served.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

The purpose is to write a new constitution. If one person writes a new constitution by themselves then the purpose was served.

Where's the fun in that? I believe that when it comes to constitutions, as many people should participate as (efficiently) possible. Much like with orgies and murder plots.