Democratic Election

[Arminius]

Since I brought it up, I'd be happy to take on the job as election manager, unless there are objections. This is how I envisage it to work:

1. Define the jobs and period of office.
2. For each post get nominations.
3. Put all nominations up in IK forum for poll.
4. goto 2

JOBS

2 Administrators (Consuls )
n Admirals (n in range 1-5, to be decided by poll?)
n Diplomats (n in range 1-4, to be decided by poll?)

PERIOD OF OFFICE

two options:
1. fixed period of time (month/fortnight?)
2. until request for change comes

Or a fixed period but possibility to replace?


The question is whether we do all this more or less informally, or with a fully blown constitution. I think the latter will be overkill, esp as we all know each other (and trust each other?). So the elections would technically be more important as reassurrance to the office holders that the members are still behind them in what they are doing. And it would give the option to people who want to take responsibility to do so in an organised way.

Opinions?


PS There might be a conflict of interest if I'm organising elections and am standing for a post at the same time; so I'm happy to let anybody else do it if anybody objects. If we decide to adopt this model I'll ask for people's opinion on that. That allows people to object in an anonymous way through the poll.

[Freiegeister]

JOBS

2 Administrators
5 Admirals
4 Diplomats

I think we were/are all happy with this arrangement?

PERIOD OF OFFICE

two options:
1. fixed period of time (month/fortnight?)
2. until request for change comes

Or a fixed period but possibility to replace?

Fixed period with automatic reelection. Say two months?
We've been going for nearly three now.

The question is whether we do all this more or less informally, or with a fully blown constitution.

I think just a simple statement, couple of sentences in the charter would do it.

I think the latter will be overkill, esp as we all know each other (and trust each other?). So the elections would technically be more important as reassurrance to the office holders that the members are still behind them in what they are doing. And it would give the option to people who want to take responsibility to do so in an organised way.

Agreed

PS There might be a conflict of interest if I'm organising elections and am standing for a post at the same time; so I'm happy to let anybody else do it if anybody objects. If we decide to adopt this model I'll ask for people's opinion on that. That allows people to object in an anonymous way through the poll.

Should be fine, it's not like you can rig the voting unless you kept resetting the poll.

[Arminius]

freiegeister said:

JOBS

2 Administrators
5 Admirals
4 Diplomats

I think we were/are all happy with this arrangement?

Presently we've got 3 diplomats. And we haven't really defined roles/jobs for the admirals to do, so do we really need 5?

[SkulkrinBait]

Do we have people interested in the positions other than those who have them now? Not much point in voting or changing it unless those without roles want them. What do the non-diplomats/admirals/admins say?

[Arminius]

skulkrinbait said:

Do we have people interested in the positions other than those who have them now? Not much point in voting or changing it unless those without roles want them. What do the non-diplomats/admirals/admins say?

One point would be to have the opportunity for people to come forward, the other to confirm that the office holders still have the trust and confidence of the members.

[Perun]

To be honest, I can see myself only as admiral (apart from being a member). Diplomacy is not my stonger feature.

[Natmus]

I think I shuld be demoted from admin to 'matchmaker'. Look what I got from Lyrypryl, after 21 y.o. fearless heard that she is a 22. y.o Japanese female:

Hello Natmus.
I got some supplies from Fearless.
We also chatted the whole morning. Maybe now I know him better than you do.

And fearless elaborated:

Message
Date: 14.09.2005 02:22
From: fearless
Subject: Captain_fog
HEHEHE, had you told m that captain_fogwas a 22 y/o japanese girl i would have rushed to her aid!!!!

She will have 100 stoners and 1k of each resource on her isle within 40 mins of this message.

Its from a friend a and i will be paying him back from my own pocket.

I'm sitting planning war and calculating damages incurred, and they are chatting. Young people! No respect for warfare, only interested in breeding games!

[inyati]

I suggest the elections only involve half of the positions at a time.
ie: Only one administrator is elected at a time, 2 or 3 admirals, and 2 diplomats.
Do a rotation. So everyone is in office during 2 periods. I think it better if half of the current members stay on and only be replaced on the next election to help the new ones get a grip of their new responsibilities.

[Starshatter]

inyati said:

I suggest the elections only involve half of the positions at a time.
ie: Only one administrator is elected at a time, 2 or 3 admirals, and 2 diplomats.
Do a rotation. So everyone is in office during 2 periods. I think it better if half of the current members stay on and only be replaced on the next election to help the new ones get a grip of their new responsibilities.

I see your point, but wonder whether this verges on the complicated. Theres only 27 of us, and I don't believe that those no longer in position would not be willing to offer help, support and guidance to new appointees (should it be necessary).

[inyati]

majordefect said:

I see your point, but wonder whether this verges on the complicated. Theres only 27 of us, and I don't believe that those no longer in position would not be willing to offer help, support and guidance to new appointees (should it be necessary).

No, but those that remain in position will help newcomers. Lets say we have 4 diplomats. Two are elected and two remain to help out the new diplomats. On the next round of election we will elect new members for the two diplomats that remained in the first round. (Still confusing?)

[Arminius]

I wouldn't expect a permanent rotation anyway. It's only to allow newcomers to take on positions if they want to, and to reassure existing office holders. Having half the posts at a time is just too complex.

The way I was envisaging is that once a month we ask for nominations and then vote, with the expectation that little would change. As long as everything goes well... Not that 'little' rather than 'nothing'.

For example, I've recently been quite active with organising a multi-hunt. Now, I know some people are with me on this, but it could also be that all the others don't like it, but don't want to mention it. So it's like asking the group whether what I've done in the past meets their agreement.

[inyati]

A-Okay

[Starshatter]

inyati said:

majordefect said:

I see your point, but wonder whether this verges on the complicated. Theres only 27 of us, and I don't believe that those no longer in position would not be willing to offer help, support and guidance to new appointees (should it be necessary).

No, but those that remain in position will help newcomers. Lets say we have 4 diplomats. Two are elected and two remain to help out the new diplomats. On the next round of election we will elect new members for the two diplomats that remained in the first round. (Still confusing?)

I understand fine, I'm not confused my friend, just voicing the opinion as to whether getting into a system where we use rotas etc is just complicating the issue, thats all!

[sparrowhawk]

perun said:

To be honest, I can see myself only as admiral (apart from being a member). Diplomacy is not my stonger feature.

;D ;D ;D

[inyati]

majordefect said:

I understand fine, I'm not confused my friend, just voicing the opinion as to whether getting into a system where we use rotas etc is just complicating the issue, thats all!

I thought I was´nt making myself clear, and actualy I was´nt understanding you clearly

And I found this interesting quote:
"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid."- Art Spander